Posted By peter gotch Dean Of course I do not advocate that duty holders should not do what is reasonably practicable, but my philosophy is about "sensible H&S", and not overdocumenting just because after the accident HSE might decide that your risk assessment [with concise, focused, proportionate information] was not "suitable and sufficient". You wrote... "Where there is an investigation and the evidence is there, usually we proescute" NOT CONVINCED!! You also suggested that the number of investigations is down as the number of accidents is down, but allowing for perhaps less underreporting by not a lot... Construction stats 1996/97 3227 major injuries to employees, and 9265 over 3 day to workers 2002/03 the equivalent numbers are 4098 and 9265. With some difficulty searching TI OHSIS rather than the HSE website found HSC Paper Misc/03/12 Health and Safety Developments in the Construction Industry A Paper by Kevin Myers and Ashley Salandy In 2002/03 Construction Division investigated 1390 accidents and 8670 complaints. Successfully prosecuted 222 defendants on 375 charges. [In terms of informations, and in Scotland complaints, drafted by InspectorS you can add about 20% for those that fall through withdrawal, plea bargaining or not guilty verdict] This is not a lot of charges per Construction Division Inspector per year. If we discount multiple charges and/or defendants and assume that none of these cases arose from proactive enforcement then this implies that Inspectors prosecuting following only 27% of investigations. Can't believe that the evidence is not available in a far greater proportion of investigations!!! In practice where HSE do elect to prosecute more often than not multiple charges [and often multiple defendants] i.e prosecution is the outcome in SUBSTANTIALLY less than 27% of investigations. The message is that we need to achieve improvements in H&S through our own efforts, and not take too much notice of HSE Inspectors sabre rattling. The reality is the beast is a sabre toothless tiger. Regards, Peter

Posted By Dean Baker and I meant to add: and we shouldnt disregard the law just because we might not get caught. If any IOSH member does suggest that doing things other than by following the regulations and guidance, they are breaching IOSH code of conduct and liable to disciplinary action. The code states: "Their practice should be performed according to the highest standards and ethical principles".

Posted By Advanced Safety appears to be a lot of comments on avoiding prosecution and enforcement notices and not a great deal on the fact that work at height can and does kill people. I have also had over 25 years experience within the Construction Industry, 15 of which in a health & Safety capacity, and have seen far too many people injured, some seriously whilst carrying out short duration work at height. While i do agree with the essence of reasonably practicable, i do not consider an hour or so to erect a tower or edge protection to prevent a person being exposed to a risk of serious injury as overkill. However, that is my opinion based on being a Health & Safety Manager for a construction company with over 100 owned site offices/containers, all of which needed repair at some stage, none of which was carried out without suitable edge protection in place! However, a system of self regulation will always prompt different opinions.

Posted By Jeffrey Watt Good debate. Glyn Atkinson answered the question fully on post number 4 IMHO. Looked at the Safepost-wouldn't have it for a single portacabin height, too short a distance to fall, so a harness and lanyard are useless as a fall arrest solution and useless as a work restaraint system cos the post is right at the edge. You'd be six inches into the dirt when the parachute deployed. How much scaffolding would you need to edge protect a big portacabin? About 40-50m of edge. And how do the guys erecting all that get up there? Are they not unprotected workers at height? So creating greater risk by doing that so that ain't an option. MEWP is not an option, it's a work platform not a means of access and zero consequent edge protection once you hop out. Guys delivering beer off a curtain sider are working at height about 1.3m, they don't need edge protection and they work off that about 4hrs a day handballing heavy loads at the edge. Considering my thought processes above, and all the info in the previous posts I would be happy with a guy going up unprotected for ten minutes on a single height portacabin as long as his supervisor was there to control the op and stop proceedings if the risk changed i.e. it became a longer job cos the damage was greater than first thought. But I never worked in construction.

Posted By ddraigice Jeff, Just because the dreymen don't have any fall protection doesnt mean that they shouldn't. The next big campaign will be falls from vehicles which I'm sure will generate more threads like this. People have to make their own minds up about this. There are some very good ideas on what you should do and what the law requires on this thread - mostly from professionals in the industry who do this type of thing every day - especially the comments from Advanced Safety (there are many others apoligies for not mentioning you). Some people are advocating not doing anything because the chances of having an accident are low and even if you do the HSE are less likely now to investigate and prosecute should an accident occur. However, we all have a moral duty to do all we can to stop someones lives being ruined, or their families lives should someone die. We can do things on the cheap and possibly get away with it. If an accident does happen it can be devastating and do not underestimate quite how devastating it can be. It depends if you want to take the risk. However, it's not productive to put your view that you think it is OK - especially if you have no knowledge of the industry. As IOSH members we have a duty to ensure the law is being followed. It may take more time and it may not be as easy - and it may not be what people want to hear. I think this thread has been exhausted now - some will say "I think it's OK and I'll do it" and others will stick by their knowledge and experience of the law and of incidents where a number of people are suffering as a result of taking one risk. It does not help the debate. No-one has suggested that the law can be interpreted in any other way than "use some sort of control measure". Until someone can come up with an interpretation of the regs which suggests it can (and I can't spot it), the "I would do this" approach is not helpful and amoral.