Rank: Forum user
|
On a site that I am involved in a crane was in use. Another H&S person objected to it as the driver did not have all round vision and insisted that it was operated with mirrors or a camera at the back.
The vehicle was static and had a banksman in attendance.
PUWER section 28 (e) states
"where the driver’s direct field of vision is inadequate to ensure safety, there are adequate devices for improving his vision so far as is reasonably practicable;"
This was a modern crane so should have been built with PUWER in mind.
Having re read the guidance the other H&S guy is right but what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I have come across this situation over and over again, especially when carrying out site inspections where 360 excavators are been used. The excavator can be supplied from the factory without any rear safety camera or safety mirror mounted on the body to aid the operator with blind spots.
"The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 , which implement the European Machinery Directive, and which contain detailed requirements for manufacturing safe new machinery; It is primarily the task of the manufacturer to design and construct new machinery so that it can be used safely. In addition to meeting certain administrative and other requirements, there are specific practical issues that need to be addressed by the manufacturer. Some of these are as follows.
There are several procedures which they must follow, but in particular they should:
identify the health and safety hazards (trapping, crushing, electrical shock, dust or fumes, noise, vibration, etc) that are likely to be present when the machinery is used; assess the likely risks; eliminate the risks, or if that is not possible: provide safeguards (eg guarding dangerous parts of the machinery, providing noise enclosures) or, if that is not possible: provide information about any residual risks and place signs on the machinery to warn of risks that cannot be reduced in other ways (eg 'noisy machine' signs)".
I therefore always maintained that the duty should always have been on the manufacturer to provide machines with these safety devices due to the serious hazards they produce on a site. Either way, it is still the duty of the owner of the machine to reduce the risk ASFAIRP, so I would always in the opinion to stop the equipment from been used until it is made safe - hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for that.
You have helped a lot.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.