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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 March 2001 09:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By M Wilson I wonder if anyone could refer me to the case/s that have resulted in the current HSE recommendations that where brick gaurds are implemented double gaurd rails should also be used. I beleive this was as a result of cases where operatives have fallen through the brickgaurd when it has only been supported by a single rail and the toe board. any leads would be appreciated thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 20 March 2001 15:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bryn Maidment Can't help with the case/s in question. Unless I'm mistaken don't scaffolds now have to have double handrails throughout, irrespective of brick guards being used or not?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 20 March 2001 16:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By M Wilson appologies if this was unclear but the information i require is what cases bought about the change to require double hand rails irrespective of use of brickgaurds or not.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 20 March 2001 18:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi I am not too sure of the case you are referring to and its context and it is possible that the scaffold case you refer to does not meet the other critera, such as being capable of providing support etc. The The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 SCHEDULE 1 Regulations 6(2), 6(3)(a) and 8(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR GUARD-RAILS ETC. states:- 1. A guard-rail, toe-board, barrier or other similar means of protection shall -- (a) be suitable and of sufficient strength and rigidity for the purpose or purposes for which it is being used; and (b) be so placed, secured and used as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that it does not become accidentally displaced. 2. Any structure or any part of a structure which supports a guard-rail, toe-board, barrier or other similar means of protection or to which a guard-rail, toe-board, barrier or other similar means of protection is attached shall be of sufficient strength and suitable for the purpose of such support or attachment. 3. The main guard-rail or other similar means of protection shall be at least 910 millimetres above the edge from which any person is liable to fall. 4. There shall not be an unprotected gap exceeding 470 millimetres between any guard-rail, toe-board, barrier or other similar means of protection. 5. Toe-boards or other similar means of protection shall not be less than 150 millimetres high. 6. Guard-rails, toe-boards, barriers and other similar means of protection shall be so placed as to prevent, so far as is practicable, the fall of any person, or any material or object, from any place of work. Also the HSE Guidance, Health & Safety in Construction, HS G 150 states:- Guard rails and toe boards They should: 1. be made from any material, providing they are strong and rigid enough to prevent people from falling and be able to withstand other loads likely to be placed on them. For example, guard rails fitted with brick guards need to be capable of supporting the weight of stacks of bricks which could fall against them; 2. be fixed to a structure, or part of a structure capable of supporting them; [] include: • a main guard rail at least 910 mm above any edge from which people are liable to fall; • a toe board at least 150 mm high; • a sufficient number of intermediate guard rails or suitable alternatives positioned so that the unprotected gap does not exceed 470 mm. Where the barrier is solid, or the space between the upper part of the barrier and the toe board is completely occupied by mesh (for example, a brick guard) or similar, an intermediate guard rail is not required. Barriers other than guard rails and toe boards can be used, so long as they are at least 910 mm high, secure and provide an equivalent standard of protection against falls and materials rolling, or being kicked, from any edges.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 21 March 2001 04:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Urquhart I too am not aware of any case, such as you mention. I think what you might be referring to is the origin of the requirement for double handrails. Look at EC Council Directive 92/57/EEC(OJNo.L245 of 26. 08. 1992) page 6 you will find that that is the source of the requirement. If you have a copy of The Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations. 1996 : SI No.1592, look at the front page, it tells you here what the legislation relates to, (ORIGIN) and what current or existing legislation is affected. If you do not have a copy go to HMSO page and using the search facility under Statutory legislation enter the SI NO for the year 1996 and you will get a copy of the Regs. I show below the segment that may be the answer to what you are looking for. 3. The Regulations give effect as respects Great Britain to the following provisions of Council Directive 92/57/EEC (OJ No. L245, 26.8.92, p. 6) on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites: (a) Articles 8(a), (b) and (d), 9(a), and paragraph 1(a)(i) of Article 10 (in so far as it refers to Article 8(a), (b) and (d) and Annex IV); (b) in part A of Annex IV, points 1.1, 1.2, sections 3 to 5, 7 to 12 and 14 to 18; (c) in section II of part B of Annex IV, sections 1, 3 to 6, points 8.1(b) and (c), 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 (in part), 9.1(b) to (d) and sections 10 to 14. Hope this is of help. Regards. Ken Urquhart
Admin  
#6 Posted : 23 March 2001 00:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Penny I dont have an answer for your query, but I would like to express concern at the number of multi story scaffolds with ladder acces ronning through them, that have an unprotected area between the guard rail and the base rail of the next lift up, its about 1.5m just enough space for some one to fall side ways through Am I being to critical or am I seeing a risk where there isn't one. regards Frank
Admin  
#7 Posted : 23 March 2001 00:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Urquhart In response to Frank Penny: No, I do not think that you are expecting too much. Look at The Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1996 - SI No 1592. (You can access thm on www.hmso.gov.uk/stat.htm) Reg 5 addresses Safe places of work and 5 (1) deals in particular with "safe access to and egress from every place of work" I would suggest that your scaffold Tower ladder/stair access is an access/egress to or associated with acces/egress to/for everyplace of work. Then Regulation 6 addresses Falls: 6 (1) dealing with the prevention of persons falling. 6 (3) addresses the risk of a fall of person(s) in excess of 2 metres whilst using an access/egress to a place of work. Schedule 1 of the regulations addresses the Requirements for Guard - rails etc. In essence I too believe that if in an access stairway or ladderway, a person traversing them passes above the existing landing or platform guarding/fall prevention, and there is risk that they could fall 2+ metres through the resultant higher gap or opening, then that too MUST be protected/guarded/closed off such as to prevent a person falling through. (And regardles of Regulations such precautions are sensible and practicable measures that do not create massive or unreasonable additional works or costs.) Perhaps others will have views on this matter and it will be intersesting to see if any further comment develops. In the meantime I hope my comments are of interest to you. Regards. Ken
Admin  
#8 Posted : 23 March 2001 11:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis You've had some full responses. It was some time last year that Amanda Huff, East Grinstead office of HSE, brought this firming of attitude to the Chertsey group. It was circulated as an internal memo and her comments raised some feathers. The essential point was that they must be rigid enough to stop a person falling through and many azare not sufficiently so. if you contact Pete Robertshaw at G. Osborne he may have some minutes available. The cases referred to by Amanda have not yet gone to court but the HSE do not see this as a change in the law as some seemed to understand but merely clearer guidance. Ken's comments on ladder access guarding is in my view correct. I prefer ladder towers with the ladder running only lift to lift so that max. fall is only 1 lift. This will also improve the flow of persons for fire. Bob
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.