We are a distribution company with 800 transit van type vehicles making daily deliveries to high st stores. In winter when ice and snow are on the ground we get a sharp increase in drivers slipping and tripping. We have looked at and tried. slip over spikes on the drivers safety shoes. Drivers don't like them as have to remove them when they need to drive, and don't seem that practical. Also tried lots of different safety boots, with extra grip, but no change in the problem. Have any others has similar issues? How have you tackled the problem?

Or is it simply an occupational hazard and if we need to deliver when the pavements, ground is icy this is going to happen?

Any help or advice appreciated

Just agreeing with Peter really. I use spikes myself and they add about 30 seconds to put them on and same to take them off. People don't like change and they do like to grumble.

There is a big difference between putting on a pair of anti slip devices before walking the dog or working outside for any length of time and the type of work a delivery driver does.

Many of these devices are lethal if you step on a tiled or concrete floor (or a tail lift platform) so would need to be removed every time the driver entered a building or his vehicle.

This could mean removing then replacing the devices hundreds of times a day so the 30 seconds or so mentioned above would add up to a huge amount of lost time in a day.

Yaktrax etc are great for working outside in icy conditions but a delivery drivers job is not quite so simple as that.

Hi,

I work for a local authority and we have previously used spikes, but these aren't great for those who are continually in and out of vehicles. We did a small trial of this product last year and are looking into it again this year. Main benefit is you can drive in it, but obviously costs more than the basic spikes.

http://www.rud.com/en/pr.../shoe-chains/i-sock.html

Mel

Maybe far fetched, maybe not

http://www.vt.edu/spotli...lls/fall-prevention.html

The device cited by Blonde Bandit at #7 might perhaps operate on the same principle as winter tyres used in Scandinavia and other countries where most road surfaces tend to remain covered with hard snow and ice throughout each winter. I understand that such tyres are made of rubber which is notably softer than that used for ordinary tyres and has remarkably good traction on ice and snow.

It would be good if further trials with the device confirm that it is effective on snow and ice and can be worn by people while driving and thus obviates the need to keep putting them on and taking them off. Though the current price per pair in the UK seems to be about £25, hopefully some reduction is available for bulk orders. Also, if demand for the device increases through greater awareness of it and confirmation of its apparent advantages, perhaps this will lead to a general reduction in price through an increase in the numbers of devices being produced.

I've been a multi-drop driver and there is no way you could put those things on and off all the time. The job wouldn't get done.

You can get winter boots, which offer far more traction than normal soles. But that comes at a price.

Personally I despair at the whole uproar in snow and ice. Be more careful springs to mind. And if you bang your shin (yep did that a few times), well that's a hazard of winter really isn't it, not a hazard of the job. Unless you lock yourself in your house during the winter months you'll as likely slip on snow and ice during your private life as your home life. The secret is just to be more careful.

I know many of you will disagree with my thoughts on this but really, people need to take some personal responsibility in winter.

Summer tyres, winter tyres and studded tyres are the most common varieties. Some so called all season tyres are also marketed as a middle road option.
Summer tyre specs usually cover down to about 6 or 7 degrees C. Lower than that and they harden and lose some grip. Winter tyres are made to operate in temps below that range and have different tread patterns. They work well in wet snow, slush etc. Studded tyres are for surfaces covered in packed ice or mud. We have traditionally not worried too much in most parts of the UK about fitting winter tyres until the recent harder winters and the more widespread fitting of Jezzer wheels to family cars ( 18 and 19 inch rims with low profile tyres. In reality for the average motorist in the UK it has been of no concern therefore it is not surprising that we know little about them or the benefits.

I suggest the same is true for winter footwear either in our private lives or work related activities. I like the look of the item at #7 but it looks as though it might introduce a new trip hazard from the increased foot size leading to catch trips where one foot catches on the other foot as it passes during walking. Users would have to lean how to walk safely I fear.

I think it's a case of practical guidance on how 'to take more care' including what adjustments to working methods/delivery timings and allowances etc are acceptable in such times. But all the while continuing the search for practical winter footwear that might help reduce the impact on productivity levels whilst keeping staff safe.

One last thing. Some years ago we had an 'expert' in to discuss practical things that we could recommend with regard to what 'taking more care' might look like. The one thing I remember is 'walk like a penguin'. Never forgotten the laugh that prompted but it is strangely good advice. Just watch how people do walk as soon as they feel 'unsafe' on ice.

p48

Those who are advising that people must 'take more care' may not have seen media reports relating to the decision in the recent Cordia case. This is very relevant - and appears to 'raise the bar' regarding what the courts are willing to accept a reasonable employer should do to protect workers in snow and ice conditions....

Long story short - care worker slipped and injured on ice on public pavement. Judge ruled it would be have been reasonable for employer to provide 'yaktraks' or similar (and make sure they are used...) Case heard as 'breach of statutory duty (PPE Regs) but could as easily have been in negligence....

So more food for more thought I would suggest...

Steve

Steve

I have attached a link to a recent civil case concerning a slip during winter that may expand the discussion. The organisation was found negligent for not providing appropriate PPE. No contibutory negligence was apportioned to the pursuer for her selection of footware or hwere she chose to park her vehicle.

http://www.scotcourts.go...pinions/2013CSOH130.html

Regards,

Stewart

What can I say. I disagree with the verdict. I would provide my own yak traks just as I would provide my own boots. They are not PPE as IMO they are for every day (Winter) risks and not those associated with work specifically. Would the employer have been held liable if she suffered hypothermia because she didn't put a scarf, hat and gloves on? Many would disagree but that is my opinion. The courts are doing no favours to this country by continuing to support such claims.

Thanks for the link. It seems to me on a quick read that the reasons behind the judgement do not discount the matter of taking care. The expert witness is quoted in the judgement as “He said that they reduced the risk although there was no one answer to the problem. Everyone still had to take care.
The matter seems to turn on the fact that the risk assessment itself did not properly consider the risk of icy or inclement weather and there was doubt that the risk had been properly assessed according to the technical standard referred (BS8800).
One might summarise the judgement as saying that simply relying upon ‘taking more care’, compounding that reliance by not adequately defining what that looks like, expecting employees to provide thier own suitable footwear and erroneously rating the risk as tolerable (when the methodology used said significant) is inadequate. I would agree with that if it is the gist of the judgement.
Does this judgement mean that ‘taking care’ is no longer tolerated? I am not so sure it does; it certainly says one cannot rely upon it in significance. However, what if there had been explicit recognition and assessment of the risk. If it had been correctly assessed as significant. Controls had included the need for modified behaviour and work patterns during such conditions, the provision of protective footwear rather than reliance upon the employee choosing and providing their own footwear alongside on-going research into available aids? One can only speculate on such matters of course but I do think the judgement may have been a little different.

Stewart, thanks for agreeing with my interpretation.

Indeed, the old chestnut of 'everyday' life risks and unthinking reliance on employee behaviour for significant risks has I am sure led many of us down a similar route.

Just as long as everyone doesn't go out and blindly buy a lorry load of clip-ons next time it gets icy then this has been a useful judgement to consider,

p48

I have a pair of shoes with a small flap on the toe. The flap flips up to reveal a high powered but very compact flame thrower to melt the ice and snow seconds before my feet hit the ground. Added bonus is that you can where you are going at night.