Then take a look at COSHH where you are required to eliminate exposure so far as is reasonably practicable and where this is not possible 'adequately control'. In other words SFAIRP does not apply to adequately control but only to elimination. Of course, no-one has yet defined what is meant by 'adequately control'. In my particular specialist area of activity(prevention of damage to health due to workplace skin exposure) anyone who thinks that they might achieve zero harm simply does not understand the complexity and potential for harm. There is always a potential for someone to be harmed by, for example, a chemical that is completely harmless to >90% of the population, but not to them. So 'zero harm' as an aspiration fine, but recognising that you might at any time find that someone has been harmed in a way that you simply could not have anticipated. Chris

Might I suggest that many companies who have Zero Harm campaigns are largely doing it as a bid tactic? It's fine as an aspiration but from what I've seen it's more a marketing tool. How many actually have a Zero Harm policy and associated procedures? Isn't it usually a glossy brochure and a bunch on naff posters? It doesn't really mean Zero Harm anyway, it means zero harm to the public and zero life-changing harm. ZERO HARM sounds cool though dunnit - if you can back it up with excellent accident stats. I stand to be corrected.

I happen to work for an employer that has an aspirational goal of "Nobody Gets Hurt" and they do put money/resources where the mouth is. Have we acheived it so far-No. Will we ever acheive it in the strictest sense-probably not in context of minor first-aids. The last RIDDOR reportable (not being able to do normal work for more than 3 days) was in 2005 and the last lost time in 2003. For corporate/internal reporting we use the OSHA recording criteria. Has reporting gone underground due to this--NO . Ultimately, it depends upon the Safety Culture of the organisation, which in turn depnds upon the overall Organisational Culture

I like to think I have a "common sense attitude to health and safety" There have been many occasions when I could have thrown the book at situations and stopped certain methods of working but that would just get the back up of the workers. Instead I discuss and learn from the workers about the situation/s and usually arrive at an agreeable solution. One example was a ceiling fixer who wanted to work using his stilts. This turned out to be the best method as other work at height equipment would have got in the way and been obstructive and difficult/time consuming to use and move about. No accidents/injuries and the job was completed early by a happy worker who has been friendly toward me ever since.

You didn't apply common sense ... you did a risk assessment and decided based on that, that the work could proceed on stilts (you see you are so good at your job you can do a risk assessment without even know it!). The common sense answer would be: “I have never seen people working on stilts so it must be dangerous: let’s ban it.” Usually when people talk of common sense they mean: “It’s been done this way for years and let’s stick with this, even though we don’t really know how safe or not it is.”

In the spirit of enlightenment - a slow read of R2P2 (Reducing Risks Protecting People) will provide one answer to the 'tolerable' number question... A properly mature safety system will accept some harm is inevitable - humans are fallible and can never be completely taken out of the equation, and many risks are not foreseeable (except in hindsight). I'm all in favour of being able to identify and control as much risk as possible, but I accept that it is never going to be possible to eliminate all negative events. That's not fatalism its realism. Avoiding a "zero accident target" does NOT imply I believe is ever acceptable to allow someone to get hurt by a risk which was (or should have been) known about and which could (or should) have been (better) controlled.

JohnW feel free to use it if you think it may be useful. Thanks for the feedback.

Correct Mick. While you're there, ask them will they knock an extra 10% off as you've advised everyone to use their common sense too. ;-)

Bob your final point about "a person looking ahead and not waiting for an accident to happen before acting" makes perfect (dare I say it) common sense, however if there is cost involved sometimes that common sense goes out of the window. Where is the sense in that?

It seems quite clear that we are all aiming for zero recordable incidents but some are willing to state it as part one of their business goals. When I'm auditing, or having a general safety conversation, and somebody says 'we haven't had an accident for school years' I ask them how they achieved it. If they can demonstrate they have robust safety process, inclusive culture and a continuous improvement process I can see how they can achieve it. Occasionally it's 'because we use common sense' and 'we're careful' without any supporting evidence it's a good indicator that they are on the road to failure. I was once at a party where a Managing Director of a very large demolition company was discussing a major project he was involved with (1980s). He said 'on a project like this it's inevitable that one or two will get killed. It's a big and hazardous job. What we should be allowed to do is put a pot aside to pay for these inconveniences'. I asked him if one of those would be his family and he went spare. I then asked him if he assembled his workforce prior to the job and informed them that they'd likely loose a couple of them on that project and to save time they'd shoot them now'. Again he lost it. As it was 8 lives were lost (I've no idea whether any where from this employer'. My point is we are at the record lows we are today from companies setting tough goals and high standards, practitioners giving competent advice, trade unions campaigning for safety and health improvements, European law etc etc. We don't accept things stay the same and hopefully we've moved on from the 80s attitude. To finish, here's my favourite quote on common sense. “Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.” ― René Descartes

A quote I've always like is: 'Common sense is instinct, enough of it is genius' Doesn't help in the health and safety arena I know, but it does highlight its rarity.

Well, in case law, it used to be the man on the Clapham Omnibus, i.e. the average person (although you can of course argue about what average is). I would see a simple definition of common sense as something that a person of reasonable intelligence ought to realise in a given situation. What winds me up is the stupid signs appearing these days. Take the bright yellow ones appearing on the back of so many trucks now, which warn of Danger, Keep Clear of Moving Vehicle. No, really? Well, it's a good job they told me! And there is the issue of high vis vests. Far from helping to protect specific types of workers by making them more visible, they are now worn by everyone and their dog. I saw someone engaged in trimming a low hedge inside a premises the other day wearing one. Why?! They are now losing all impact due to people not exercising 'common sense' in their use.

Biker at least you saw him, does that prove something?

Anyone who uses the phrase 'common sense' when I'm teaching receives a blast from an airhorn. This triggers the 'common sense game'. a series of questions which, when the various answers are plotted, demonstrates how uncommon sense is. Common Knowledge = yes. Common Sense = Does Not Exist!!!

Will do but I'll have to type them up. They're currently written on cue cards. PM me your email address anyway and I'll ping them over when they're done.

Apparently your PM inbox is full. I too would love to see the questions. Thanks so much for the very kind offer of you typing them up for an email, assuming I may prevail upon you as well. Best wishes, Nigel silddx@gmail.com

Yes, but I also saw that it was stationary. I thought warning of reversing was what reversing alarms, bleepers, announcements etc were for. If they're now going to supplement this with safety signs, what next, an announcement in the Times?