Posted By Jane Moody I get rather annoyed when people tell me health and safety is “just common sense”. ( If only it was – I would be a Registered Common Sense Practitioner). The comment really means that the speaker has switched brain into OFF mode, and is usually made only by those with little sense, common or otherwise. My response is usually to agree with the speaker for a peaceful life, but to add that it is also important to understand both legal and company requirements. Can anyone help me with a better response that will encourage these rather short-sighted people to pay attention ? Many thanks

Posted By Geoff Burt Hi Paul I have a similar answer - 'in that case why were 270 people killed last year at work.' (for the pedants the exact number doesn't matter). One response I liked from a colleague was 'that common sense is not as common as is commonly supposed'. Personally I always try to use the phrase 'good sense'. Geoff

Posted By Jerry Hill Common Sense - My dictionary describes it as 'good practical sense in every day affairs'. Does it make good practical sense NOT to wear a hard hat? Does it make good practical sense to remove a guard provided for ones protection? Obviously it doesn't, but as previous responders have already pointed out, common sense is not as common as we like to think. The only way forward, as I see it, is to continue to do what we all do daily. Educate the uneducated, Inform the un-informed and attempt to protect those that need protecting. Good luck!

Posted By Jane Blunt Dear Jane I also sometimes start a presentation with this phrase, and then go on to refute it. I finish by reminding them that common sense only appears to work retrospectively. In advance of the accident, common sense is like hen's teeth. Regards Jane

Posted By Nigel Hammond Hi Jane Looks like you have written a raw nerve here. I always begin my courses with the 3 reasons for managing health & safety - and I make sure that they are positive reasons - I think there's far to much negativity in health & safety training: Reason 1 - We want good health & happiness of our staff - to do this we need to prevent our staff becoming part of the UK statistics (e.g. 130,000 major injuries per year, 2.2m suffering work related ill-health, roughly 20,000 die a year from occupational health problems). Reason 2 - We want to spend money! on better pay and conditions etc. Sodon't let money drain away on expensive accidents and ill-health (look at the HSE web-site for a list of costs - which are numerous - e.g sickpay, litigation, increased insurance premiums). Reason 3 - We want a top reputation! Our mission statement says we aim to be the best in our line of work. However, if we get dragged through the courts, we end-up on HSE's name and shame website or in the press. As a result we can loose business. If on the other hand we show that we are proactive in the prevention of accidents and ill-health to our customers this can often help us to gain business. Once you have gone through these points you can really dismiss the common sense argument as being unhelpful or irrelevant. Another point is that over 90% of accidents are caused by people. People are unreliable in health & safety terms. Whether this is due to 'common sense' or not - so it is best to carry out risk assessments and deal with hazards at source so that people do not come into contact with them. Personnally, I don't like saying that we've got to manage health & safety because it's a legal requirement. This implies that we are just doing it because we've been told to - I'd rather get people passionately behind it.

Posted By Andy Jane, My response is very simple, let the group or the person define common, they usualy come up with general or all and then 'sense' - and they pick up awareness or knowledege. Then ask "Do all have sufficient knowledge of H&S requirements", the answer is no. It is difficult to be negative and say no when someone genuinely puts this across, they are not always being difficult, however, I find that when this response is put across gently it works. Hope this helps Andrew

Posted By Lee Bennett I always say if only it were that easy I wouldn't have been studying the subject for 3 years and am still studying!

Posted By Graham Bullough My response to people who suggest that health and safety is just common sense is that most people just don't use common sense. One of the challenges for those of us who work in health and safety is to change the common misperceptions people have about risk. Surely the reason that significant numbers of people take a chance and, for example, don't wear helmets, seat belts, etc. is that they perceive or know from experience that the likelihood of being hit by a falling object or being in a car crash is remote. Also they perceive that their likelihood of being prosecuted for not taking precautions is also fairly remote. However, their risk assessment is incomplete because they forget or overlook the potential consequences and severity of an adverse incident if one does occur, and the same probably applies to enforcement action. We are hampered by probability in that the vast majority of people who wittingly or unwittingly take unnecessary risks get away with it nearly all the time. If they continue to get away with it this merely reinforces their perception that nothing adverse will happen to them. Another thought regarding yellow box speed cameras which were mentioned earlier in this thread. I bet some motorists still take a chance with speeding past them in the knowledge that, in some if not all areas, they will tend to escape enforcement action because few boxes actually contain cameras which are expensive and have to be shuffled around between boxes.

Posted By Laurie Sorry Andy, can't agree. I have known two research professors at the top level of a university, working on the same project, and they didn't have an ounce of common sense between them!! Laurie

Posted By ron muir Hi Jane, I always say "There are plenty of common people but not many sensible people" If sense were commom, we'd all be out of work as Safety Advisers!

Posted By Robert K Lewis Arran Bit of a can of worms opened here and it shows why "common sense" is not the only prerequisite for a practitioner. My gut feeling is that the civil courts are trying to put some clear water between what is significant risk and what is not and should therefore be subject to the test of something like the "reasonable man". Unfortunately the enforcement authorities have tended to a very rigid interpretation of the various regulations such that even comparatively minor remote risks are now subject to the full rigours of assessment: witness the thread on earthquakes. The quirky behaviour of some courts is interesting to say the least but I can at least detect some common threads 1) Foreseeable possibility 2) Is it out of the ordinary 3) Are employers (made) aware 4) Repetition of event Is there a heirarchy here I wonder? Bob

Posted By Steve Plant On a practical note - whenI finally lose patience with individuals telling me that H&S is 'common sense' (what they actually mean is that most remedies are, in retrospect, application of common sense - which is in fact mostly true)I put together a one page flow chart starting with a specific reference to one of H&S at Work Acts general requirements then link it into two or three individual regulations from one of the six pack continuing this into as many reference material (ACOP's, guidance,BS standards and specialist papers) I can list on the particular area/subject I have chosen to beat them with. I then point out that they are unlikely to reach best practice for their organisation until they have at least appraised a significant amount of said material. This usually, if not actually convincing them, makes them take a different tack for fear of being bored to death or embarrassed. Steve.