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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1 Posted : 17 November 2017 21:11:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.ioshmagazine.com/article/hardware-suppliers-commended-ssow-did-not-prevent-forklift-crush

Said many times before on the forum - your RA's suitability and sufficiency is only validated by the court when something has gone wrong!

Intersted to know who "commended" the systems?

But then you see they rested upon their laurels for 11 years between the commendation and the incident

Edited by moderator 24 November 2017 16:31:49(UTC)  | Reason: Laurels? Further edited by Mod 3 for FR compliance

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 17 November 2017 21:11:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.ioshmagazine.com/article/hardware-suppliers-commended-ssow-did-not-prevent-forklift-crush

Said many times before on the forum - your RA's suitability and sufficiency is only validated by the court when something has gone wrong!

Intersted to know who "commended" the systems?

But then you see they rested upon their laurels for 11 years between the commendation and the incident

Edited by moderator 24 November 2017 16:31:49(UTC)  | Reason: Laurels? Further edited by Mod 3 for FR compliance

A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 20 November 2017 09:13:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Twelve years is a long time for any sort of SSOW/risk assessment. The question has it been reviewed or did they rest on their laurels?

RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 20 November 2017 09:36:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I note it was the accused solicitor who states the SSoW/RA was 'commended' but not by whom - it could have been the cleaner. Clearly from the post actions ncluding demarcation lines for pedestrians and FLTs the SSoW did not appear very comprehensive.  

Like all things in H&S only the courts can decide whether something is suitable and suffcient. Normally following a serious incident where there is often an element of hindsight bias. No single control or piece of paper will prevent all accidents, regardless of how comprehensive it is.   

A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 20 November 2017 09:52:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The solicitor was just doing his job: minimising the sentence for their client. It is hard to tell whether the fact that the company had been “commended “on its H&S 12 years ago was taken into account. As has been noted a) twelve years ago is a long time in H&S and b) it was not clear who did the commending.

Users browsing this topic
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.