Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
bob youel  
#41 Posted : 21 June 2011 09:57:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

""If you produce a R/A that has a high risk rating and something goes wrong - how to explain to the HSE why you let that work continue when you considered it dangerous to do so""" High risk areas e.g. Refuse collection; Chapter 8 working on the public highway, lolly-pop operations & similar are present irrespective of what you do and U have to let work continue or the country will stop There are more deaths / major disabilities on the road every year that anything else and work related deaths etc are being kept out of the stats deliberately as we have no real controls over the public in public places so sometimes we have no option but to have high risk and continue to work ------ all we can do is what is reasonably practicable in any given situation Only yesterday we had a court case where one of my refuse collectors was deliberately ran down [yes it was a deliberate action in front of witnesses] whilst he was trying to undertake his work for U and I --- The risk is high in that occupation no matter what we do but we cannot stop the activity ----We have another similar and separate case involving a different car driver coming up shortly where another refuse collector was deliberately ran down ----- We know its high risk but what can we do about the public --- The HSE etc are fully aware and accept the situation as they too have no power over the public
TomDoyle  
#42 Posted : 21 June 2011 12:29:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TomDoyle

Hello Stuff4blokes Not pouncing but I think I may have not been clear. I agree that PPE has its place and in some circumstances is the most practicable solution when coupled with other element of the hierarchy. I also agree that in the situation I described “The hazard remains constant but the risk arising is reduced.” I interpret “the hazard remains constant” to mean that the projectile has the same shape, mass, and velocity which are the three things that are problematic when the projectile strikes the eyeball. Placing a suitable barrier between the eyeball and the projectile will reduce the likelihood of the projectile striking the eyeball. If the barrier is missing for any reason the shape, mass, and velocity of the projectile still produce the original potential severity. Also, if risk is a function of severity of harm and the likelihood of that harm occurring and the hazard remains constant then the only thing available to be effected is the likelihood. That is why I contend that in most cases PPE effects likelihood. All that being said: I agree with most of the posts. The objective of undertaking a risk assessment process should be to figure out how to best protect the worker. If the end result is no injuries then the objective has been achieved. We should be happy but not complacent. Cheers Tom
MEden380  
#43 Posted : 21 June 2011 14:32:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Bob Youel You have hit the nail on the head with the phrase of "reasonably practicable". There are ways you can minimise the risk from the public by having safe systems of work. There are refuse vehicles that can be loaded from the side so operatives do not have to walk in the road. Health and safety legislation does not say you can't do that because of H&S. What we , as safety professionals, must do is ensure the work is as safe as possible and economically viable, if this means developing new plant and equipment, what is wrong with that? Yes there are a lot of incidents on the public highway, but take a good hard look at the working methods before you blame every other road user. Granted there are a lot of idiots behind the wheel of vehicles, but people working in this environment need to be trained and made aware of control measures to minimise risk to themselves and others.
Ron Hunter  
#44 Posted : 21 June 2011 15:35:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Local Authorities could avoid holding up peak time traffic and inciting road rage by collecting refuse on the back shift or night shift (as happens in USA). I don't accept that "no matter what we do" viewpoint. The world outside is changing rapidly and work practices and safe systems have to keep pace.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
2 Pages<12
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.