Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Martin Taylor
We operate counterbalance and reach trucks in a factory environment.
We have previously assessed the risk of overturning as minimal with no incidents or nearmisses in the 13 years life fof the company and as such although seatbeltsa re fitted to all trucks we have not enforced their wearing.
Looking at this again recently I would be interested in other experts views on the circumstances where seatbelts on FLTS are essentional and where they are not neccesary - all views and opinions welcome
thanks
Martin Taylor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Last week I would have said they should be worn on uneven ground. Wednesday of this week talked to safety man at a "white van" construction plant. They had recently had a near roll-over inside the plant : Driver had picked up a stack of tyres in a clamp. Bottom tyre dropped out, truck rolled on it and tipped sideways into some racking. (no injury)Accidents DO happen.
Where do we put this on the conkers scale ?
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By chris duncan
heres what PUWER regs state..OVERTURNING (FORK LIFT TRUCK) (Reg 7)
26 Regulation 27 requires restraining systems to be fitted to certain fork lift trucks if there are risks (particularly crushing between the truck and the ground), should the truck overturn. This would apply for example to seated, centre-control, counterbalanced fork lift-trucks. There is duplication with the requirements in reg 26(2) for other types of truck. Where such a counterbalanced truck is to be used in a high risk situation but, because of the age and design of the truck, there are technical difficulties in fitting attachment points for a restraining system, the selection of suitable alternative equipment may be the only solution. This may be a particular problem with battery powered fork lift trucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
The above responses are valid and demonstrate the fundamental issue - you must do thorough risk assessment and be prepared to defend it!
Another principle thrust of current HSC & HSE statements is that h&s is all about managing the risk, not pretending that there will be no risk if you follow any particular course of action - in fact the "reasonably practicable" requyirement identified in HSWA S 40.
Shame that the courts and the HSE staff don't seem to know about this initiative to reclaim the concept of "reasonably practicable".
Of course, Civil law is very different!
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Hartland
Hi Martin
All of our counterbalance trucks have operator restraints (seat belts) fitted as standard so we enforce their use. We used to use a few reach trucks but we assessed them as not requiring operator restraints, they didnt have seat belts fitted as standard anyway.
If you havent already seen it here is the HSE's guidance.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc241.pdf
Regards
Martin Hartland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Taylor
thanks for the replies so far - the HSE publication just about covers my needs
ta
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
We have several Fork Lift trucks, and originally had assessed the risk of the truck rolling over as extremely low. The we had an incident where the driver thought his truck was going to roll over so jumped out (against the recommendation during his training). We then enforced the wearing of seat belts. Also stops operators leaning out too far
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.