Posted By Frin G Check it out... Maybe Bob the Builder needs a health and safety advisor? http://www.ananova.com/e...ent/story/sm_490448.html Any takers?!

Posted By Jimmy What age group is the Aussie officialdom targeting. They are all valid points, but children (I must assume that they are children, hmm!) should be allowed to be just that---children-- along with responsible parential guidance. Superman lept off tall buildings,stood on a railway and halted a train etc etc. Wasnt he a hero once? Whilst they're not wrong to criticise "Our Bob", I'm sure that the targetted age group are equally not yet ready to understand the real reason for construction safety. But I suppose it is never too young to learn!

Posted By Jim Walker On the positive side, he is well up on consultation - even checks the cement mixer knows what's happening. Anyone noticed his hands? are the lost fingers due to workplace accidents?

Posted By Jason Gould I actually did not know that. Thanks for the Info. Is there anywhere I can go on the to find what figures are actually counted and what figures are left out. Jason

Posted By Sean Fraser What a shame we seem to be trivialising the message that has been raised here - in fact, one we have raised on this very forum numerous times in the last year or so, where we have just thrown up our hands and muttered balefully in conclusion "well, what can you do?". Our Aussie cousins have just shown us. This all comes down to basic psychology. Have you never wondered why so much effort and writing in psychology focuses on childhood issues? It is because the formative years are at the start of our lives, not later on. When we try to modify the behaviours of adults, we are trying to change patterns that have formed and been reinforced during childhood. So much effort, so little gain. How much better then that we teach our children what are acceptable and more importantly unacceptable behaviours, so they will carry these social principles forward. There will be an inevitable outcry here about freedom of choice and the dangers of brainwashing. I am very much a libertarian, but I also believe that we need a stable and peaceful society in which to exercise our freedoms of choice and that these choices are to be based on sound knowledge and facts. Is it acceptable to choose to drink and then drive? Is is acceptable to choose to work on a roof with no fall arrest equipment or safeguards? Is it acceptable to choose to work with dangerous chemicals without adequate safety provisions in place such as safe systems of work based on appropriate risk asessment? If you believe so, then what are you doing working as a safety professional? Our children learn how to operate and function in society much more from what they see and experience than what they hear. So do adults, by the way! What harm is there in getting Bob to wear his seatbelt - or have an accident while not wearing it and rue the errors of his ways? Are these programmes not supposed to be educational as well as entertainment? IS this a good educational message? I have long been an advocate of getting them when they are young - good behaviour is learned, not innate. It is not until later that we can adequately explain why good behaviour benefits us all as a society, even if sometimes we need to sacrifice time and effort to achieve it. Think of the time we could all save if we were pushing against an open door rather than having special interests forcibly shoving it closed all the time. What has been done in the past is past - what is the point in bringing that up? What we do now will sow the seeds for the future - what better objective could we aspire towards? After all, is our goal not to achieve zero incidents through an effective safety culture? Then again, as Hegel once said, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history"!

Posted By Jimmy Who's "Hagel"---and would it make matters any better if "Bob" had an "inducted" sticker on his hard hat?

Posted By Hilary Charlton Sorry but I agree with Rob - children are children - you cannot expect the television to take the place of parental responsibility. Perhaps this programme would be better if Bob put his seatbelt on attended to every health and safety issue but then it rather takes the joy out of the programme and makes it more of a public information film. How many children's programmes would not be made if we went into that much detail? Did Postman Pat always put his seatbelt on, or Fireman Sam - did they always have SCBA on the Fire Engine - what about the Fire Engine in Camberwick Green (or was it Trumpton?) where they all hang off the sides. What about Tom and Jerry - how violent is that? If anyone actually stopped and thought sensibly about this they would realise that practically NO childrens programmes, cartoons or in fact feature films would be made if one had to incorporate all the safety aspects into the film - well, they might make them but how exciting would Cliffhanger be if Sylvester Stallone was wearing a harness and lanyard? I rest my case. Hilary

Posted By Sean Fraser What is the point to a safety advisor? Is it just to create rules, then enforce them? If that is what you think, and you work in the safety profession, then you are behind the times mes amis. Safety is no longer about rules and procedures - it is a matter of culture and belief. Banning things solves little and can even create more dangerous situations that were unforeseen at the time - and bans (and laws) can be ignored or circumvented. But informed decision-making . . . that is for life. Do we do things becuase we have to . . . or because we want to? Take away the objective of zero incidents - that is a discussion for another time. But surely we all agree that our purpose is to reduce accident frquency and severity, so even if it never reaches absolute zero in perpetuity, it is at least a very rare event and even then only minor in consequence? It is seductively exciting to be involved in an accident investigation - very important job, must get to the route cause and eliminate it, no expense spared . . . all done AFTER the event. And often the same things recur anyway, despite our "best" efforts. Frustrating, time consuming and ultimately futile. In our profession, success is measured by what DOESN'T happen (i.e. accidents), not in how well we cope with it afterwards. After a while, it looks like we don't have a job because, well let's hear it, it is "common sense" anyway . . . isn't it? Where do you think this "common sense" comes from? It comes from a combination of nature & nurture. Past vision is always 20/20, but we don't seem capable of applying the lessons learned. Let me reiterate - encouraging good behaviours at the outset, at the earliest age and onwards, will not benefit us immediately - but it will improve our society in the longer term as we use a combination of information, experience and intellegence to make safe and effective choices for ourselves and others, clearly understanding the hazards and proportionality of consequences involved. No fate but the one we make. Short term fiscal-oriented thinking would ask - why do we still need to educate, train, audit if no-one is having accidents anyway? It is this mis-comprehension that leads to cuts, reduction in activity and eventually . . . accidents rise as poor habits and practices creep back in. How much easier would it be for us ALL if we and our compatriots approached ANY activity with risk perception fully and constantly active? Our eventual aim - replace checking with training, and let people work the best way they can to meet their objectives, safely. Safety is not an add-on - it is integral to everything we do. A safety person doesn't make me safe. Rule and procedures don't make me safe. Equipment doesn't make me safe. I make me safe. And if it isn't safe, I think how I can make it safe and then decide whether I want to proceed or not. Clarkson is quite right in his "attack" on the safety profession as he sees it - it is obviously the response to the controlling mentality that he has been unfortunate to experience in his trade, if not in others. The general tendency of public organisations especially to over-react and over-prescribe is legendary and the frequent object of ridicule. And well deserved too. Treating adults like children is offensive and counter-productive. People follow and apply principles and procedures much better if they understand the 'why', not just the 'what'. I do things safely because I understand the principles of hazard and risk - planning and preparation, good knowledge and proper equipment. I choose to hold hand-rails on stairs because I feel safer that way - not because someone told me to. All I want to do is teach people the same principles and let them decide FOR THEMSELVES the best way to assure their own safety. People don't want to be injured or killed at work. Yet they still do and for why? Because we have failed to adequately educte them in effective risk perception. I come back to an old favourite of mine - extreme sports. The actual object is to place oneself as close to danger as possible, to experience the adreneline rush involved. Ban it, and they would seek this thrill some other way - most likely criminal and almost definitely in a dangerous manner. So can it be safe? Of course it can! And how - planning and preparation, good knowledge and proper equipment. Do you really think they participate in the sport EXPECTING to be killed or injured? Of course not. But it is a possibility and they do everything they can to offset it, while still achieving the result they crave. I salute them. And if that sounds like an anorak or a despot to you, then I despair. If through this discussion I am failing to get this message out to my fellow professionals then I see I have a long way to go yet.

Posted By Jack A bloke who spends a weekend fishing wonders how people find time to watch Bob the Builder!

Posted By Robert.J Going full circle again. The tractor bucket incident, tragic as it was, would, I'm sure, relate well to the "old" construction industry and BTB, ie, the old dump truck carrying the guys of to tea break!! But the next time you see little Johnny, Billy, whoever, pushing his little wheelbarrow with his pal in it. Would even the most beaurocratic H&S professional comment to the child on the forseeable dangers of such an action? Would they report it to mum or dad? Responsible parential supervision and guidance will always prevail. Oz has gone too far.

Posted By Zoe Barnett This whole debate reminds me of a bit on the Finding Nemo DVD. The animators got some marine biology expert to come and talk to them about how fish swim, move, act and so on. A few weeks later they proudly showed him the initial version of the film, and the biologist was aghast. "Fish can't do that with their dorsal fins!" he cried. "No," said the animators. "And they can't talk either." Kids are not stupid. They know that Bob isn't real. They know that cats aren't blue, that cement mixers can't talk and that no builder in the history of the world ever built a conservatory in a day. So they are surely to goodness not going to even dream of following his example, even if their parents are irresponsible enough not to force them into their seat belts. None of this is new. When I was young back in the heady 70s the fear was that Bill and Ben would stop children from developing the ability to speak. Arrant nonsense. Flobber.

Posted By PaulA IOSH.... Please remove my log in and do not allow me to log in again.......... This is KILLING ME!!!!! 01.13 and i'm reading this dribble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS A PUPPET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted By Richard Webber Joseph Byrne stated in response 6 on this thread that "Seemingly if you have an accident on site but die in the ambulance on the journey to hospital or in the hospital itself...you don't fall into the criteria of construction death" I do not believe that this is true. When an employer reports a fatality through RIDDOR the question of where the victim actually died does not arise. Where did this idea come from? Richard

Posted By Nick Higginson Thought I'd provide an update on this: Bob has just been called to an urgent job where part of a museum has collapsed. Unable to hide his disappointment, Bob suggested to his employees that they could rush the job, and still have time to go for a picnic after. No mention of notifying HSE! (My kids were watching and I was just working at the table.....Honest!) Nick

Posted By Nick Higginson Zoe, No don't worry - Bob has just paid £200 for a health & safety policy and three risk assessments from a website. He is now "fully compliany" and can go on his picnic with a clear conscience. Regards Nick