Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Whilst reading this month's SHP I noticed an article on p21 about the new director of safety of the ORR stating: "I firmly believe in the concept of zero accidents being achievable..."
Is it me, or do unrealistic comments like this get up your nose as well?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
Well woolworths have only just achieved it.
In other places where there are employees, visitors, contractors or any other class of people. Accidents will happen regardless of how good the safety management system is. It's just a matter of incident rates then but it's highly unlikely it'll ever be 0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
I firmly believe if the company head honcho makes a statement like that, then under reporting is part of that company's safety culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
I wouldn't expect such remarks from a director of big organisation. (It shows you the competence of selection and ability in some organisations - Monopoly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Zero accidents is an achievable status.
Most (if not all) companies cannot afford to provide the necessary resources to achieve it though.
Some achieve it through good luck.
I can't think of a single accident I have investigated that was not preventable by better design, quality assurance, training, management, attention, or timely replacement of equipment or personnel. Can you?
Achievable, yes, practical? Hardly ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
OK so at what point do you sit back and say we have gone as far as we can and any accidents from this point are unavoidable? Because that is the logical extension of what you are saying. For someone to say that "zero accidents are achievable" may sound foolish but at least it is positive. To me statements like "accidents will happen reagrdless....." are dangerous. How long will it be before it is easier to say "That was unavoidable"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Just got in before me Tabs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Peter, whatever happened to SMART, which includes achievable and realistic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
Ramond
I wonder if his organisation rewards zero accidents via bonuses etc?
I think its a perfect "world type" scenario! By all means state that you are "striving for zero accidents" and that "1 accident is too many" but in reality, which is the world where we wake up in, its never going to happen. Unless of course we totally automate everything and we then provide humans with a "cotton wool wrapped" environment.
Just hope that they don't become allergic to it?
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
As an accident is an unplanned event how can you have zero unplanned events...surely that means you have planned it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
I agree that we can't sit back and relax just because accidents rarely occur. Of course improvements can be made and accidents can be avoided. But shouldn't organizations set achievable targets to work for and measure their performance against? While zero accidents is 'achievable' over a prescribed time scale. The main target should be sustainably low incident rates (and I agree that zero is as low as you can get).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
That's a profound statment Tony! lol.
If we automate all processes, we'd need to have automated maintenance in order to reduce accident risk to zero, and automate the maintenance of the automated maintenance etc etc. Without zero risk, accidents will never be zero, it's a matter of numbers then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
I remember when I was school, one of our physics teacher said;
“Everything is possible in the world if….”
And he also carried on saying that
“however, IF is not possible feasible all the time”
That was my lesson at school age. We live in a realistic word here, hence a realistic comments prevail. ( Now don’t say that IT IS NOT WRONG TO SAY IN ARMY)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TDsafety
I worked at a national company who set a target of zero. I disgareed with them stating it was unachievable. The safeyty manager began investigating accident and then not reporting hem by stating that ' the injured person could have returned to work'. So they never got riddor reported. Basically, the investigation was for even the smallest thing. In the end people stopped reporting accident because of the hastle involved afterwards. So they had a record of zero reported for 12 months. The point being it was achieved. But this was a false reading. A bit like a sound monitor taking readings from too far away. I left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Kirsty, what does "( Now don’t say that IT IS NOT WRONG TO SAY IN ARMY)" mean? I am puzzled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I won't get in to the "zero" argument this week. Been there, done that and got a drawer full of supermarket trolley tokens. (price on application)
However, I am a firm believer in the "acceptable rate" concept.
Companies, and managers decide for themselves perhaps based on objective or subjective criteria, that their current accident rate is "acceptable" or "not acceptable"
If "acceptable", they express themselves as happy to be "better than" or "no worse than" average for the industry and do nothing more than the minimum. If that.
Should, however, they decide that their current rate is "not acceptable" then they will take some action (whatever) to drive that rate down to an "acceptable" level. (please note that actual numbers have no relevance in this argument. It's the sentiment that counts)
"acceptable" rates, once achieved, can be maintained for a number of years, maybe up and down a bit from one year to another, with a minimum of effort.
But then, "minimum effort" often leads to complacency, weakening of safety effort and investment and a recrudescence of accidents. i.e. the rate becomes "unacceptable" once more and a new initiative will be called for.
That's life. (Esther Ransom circa 1990 (?))
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Merv
Your usual pearls of wisdom, even if embellished with your 'off the wall' style.
In the words of the late Allan St John-Holt, it is about "sensible safety". It appears some people have difficulty in separating concept from reality. Of course we would all like to achieve zero accidents (I can't bring myself to say zero tolerance) but pragmatics dictate that with the best will in the world it cannot happen, at least not on a major construction project. All we can hope for is that accidents and incidents are relatively minor.
However, I do not want a project manager, operations manager or director asking me why there have been a number of minor accidents and incidents when zero accidents is achievable. Unhelpful comments do safety practitioners no favours at all, worse still, when they emanate from our profession.
Mantra over.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
"Zero Accidents" is a wonderful thought, and may be not achievable, but what target do we set. Three accidents this year, we just have to pick the three victims.
Employees calls wife at home one day and tells her to meet him at the hospital at 1500hrs as it is his turn to have an accident.
I prefer "zero injuries" as a target to aim for, and always to strive for, and if we have an accident resulting in an injury then we strive that bit harder.
Safety isn't something that can be switched on and off. We have to continually work at it.
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SNS
I am currently going through a management challenge (!). My desire / aim is to use ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable)as a target, to be set against previous years stats and national figures for similar industries. All whilst getting reportables reported and accident / near miss procedures initiated and completed where lacking.
A zero target will, as has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, be a major demotivator and conflicts with the need for reporting to analyse causes and get fixes carried out.
Glad I didn't want an easy life :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Ray,
"off the wall" ? Qui, moi ?
In practice (and I'm still practicing) I go for "better than ever before"
Depending on site, industry, management, available resources and so on I can recommend and help plan for 50%, 25%, 30% ... year-on-year improvement. Obviously this will trend towards zero but, theoretically, will never get there.
However, setting Zeno (or was it Xeno ?) to one side zero does and can happen. Sometimes. But there are so many factors (for better or for worse, in sickness and in health) which can influence the overall safety culture of a company or a site that I never bet on the outcome. (no "contingency" fees)(take the money and walk away in a manner becoming a Chartered Safety Practitioner)
Frinstance. We have a number of automobile sites, constructors and suppliers who have been getting quite good over the last few years (trending to zero) But lately their rates are starting to climb. Uncertainty for the future and, importantly, not enough work to do, minds not on the job and routines gone to pot. (one bloke had brake fluid pumped into his ear)
I'm still a believer in "zero" as an objective. But maybe not this year. Soon.
And certainly there is no way you can honestly go from a significant rate to zero overnight.
Open the cage.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
The concept of Zero accidents being achieved is an Admirable aspiration. For the purpose of measuring performance the bench mark figure must be absolute Zero. However, as we all know this degree of Safety is seldom achieved, furthermore, when Human Nature + Time line is factored into the equation, that which happens blindly without intelligent design materialises and the frequency rate accelerates.
For the Gentleman in question to proclaim that anything other than Zero was acceptable to his aspirations, would be an admission of degradation of his remit.
The reality is that all and sundry can only aspire to realise the concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Matthews
I look at the wall behind my computer to where my Chartered Fellow of IOSH document once sat in a wooden frame. It is no longer there because I choose to resign from IOSH, but the many years of membership still remain with me and the nature of this discussion is one which has been with us for many years.
The question seems to be that if not zero accidents, then what measure can we apply. Market forces in the form of public opinion will decide on what is acceptable.
Even though it appears that our present financial problems emanate from a failure to adequately regulate the financial sector, there still seems an unending appetite for deregulation on health and safety matters.
The level of support within the news media and as a consequence the general public, for measures to deliver zero accident returns, is simply not there.
When the media is less concern with wars, plagues and famine, their attention might once again focus on human suffering due to accidents at work. Perhaps then those engaged in health and safety will cease to be portrayed as siren voices from a different era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Worth
Being hit in your home by a crashing aeroplane 1 in 250000 (OK i couldn't find work in 5 mins but you get the idea :) )
I had an argument about zero accidents at a job interview.
I gave the Merv case
She gave the Zero case
I didn't get the job :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
Ian (the new director of safety at the ORR) has some very intersting views on safety, his current position is a development of what he was trying to impliment at Metronet before they went bust and sent him on his was.
He has developed his 'six pillars of safety' approach which he looks like taking to the ORR, while I can see where he's coming from, I wouldn't do it that way.
I do agree with Ian's view on a lot of topics, but there are some areas that make me wince and I think he could try a little harder to get his message across in a way that people understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I am glad I posted this thread as there have been some interesting comments both for and against the concept of 'zero accidents'.
Why I wonder do we need a target at all? If we do, then why not a proportionate target relative to the frequency of accidents - which is not zero. The reduction of accidents and incidents will be affected exponentially and therefore a year on year improvement is not sustainable in most working environments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
I wonder if the woolworths recent fine regarding asbestos exposure would come under their zero accident criteria???
I cannot see that zero philosophy is achievable, although I am an advocate of all accidents are preventable... if systems and human behaviour can be taken into hand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
To my mind 'zero accidents' flies in the face of the HSE 'sensible health and safety'.
Unless we accept that sometimes accidents do happen and are just that accidents. Big cause of accidents is falls on stairs - do we insist that the world is built on one floor? No, we make sure that there are no liquids on the stairs, we provide handrails, we make sure the stairs are in good repair etc. Then we accept that people like me who take tumbles and fracture shinbones are just unlucky (I prefer the term unlucky to clumsy - it makes me feel less stupid!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Please think about where this guy is coming from. He probably means a zero rate of rail accidents which is achievable and has been done over the years. When it comes to personal accidents there is much harder problem to be managed. I have not read his comments (but would like to, where are they?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
Apologies if this comes across as a rant but...If your target isn't zero lost time accidents what are you aiming for.
An accident is, as stated, an unplanned event. The aim of many quality, production and Human Performance programs is to design unplanned events out of the process. Why should that be different with safety?
We operate 'target zero', we don't fudge figures and we have had sustained periods without lost time accidents. We include all agency and term contractors in our calculations because the concept should apply to all those on site.
I spend more time investigating near misses than accidents and I believe thats the right approach.
If your accepting accidents to someone elses children you should put your own at the front of the line so you can fully appreciate the human cost brought on by a significant accident.
Hopefully you will then understand why you need to aim for Zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil R
Zero accidents is achievable, what you have to have though is resources, planning etc.
Once you have all the procedures in place you need a good behavioural safety program, as you need staff to follow these procedures and to be aware of hazards etc themselves. You also need near misses to be reported and an accident type of investigation into them. Putting control measures in place from what you have learnt from a near miss will prevent accidents occuring in the same circumstances.
If a company has a zero accidents target and a plan to get there then it shows commitment,
would you prefer a target of:
less than 20 serious accidents?
or we aim to not to kill anyone, however it might happen you never know.
Its a bold and positive statement, stop being so negative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
I agree, Bob. The article is on page 21 of January SHP. The context is that there were 15 deaths of track workers [year not stated in article], and there have already been a number this year [again, year not stated in the article].
Since he is stating that his aim is to start with the fatalities and work down the accident chain, I think it is a good statement.
OK, some time before you reach the level of paper cuts and falling over your own feet, you stop.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Merchant
"He probably means a zero rate of rail accidents which is achievable and has been done over the years"
That really depends on what you define as an accident. You could throw billions at track maintenance and potentially get zero points failing in a year, but you absolutely cannot prevent vandalism, or accidents at level crossings. The causes aren't under the control of the company.
Remember, "zero accidents" simply means that this year, you were lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kirsty Davies2
A good practice is where you set reasonable achievable objectives and then you focus on achieving those targets. At the end, you review your performance overall.
Setting the reasonable targets provides a motivation and commitment to all the relevant parties and they work hard to achieve those goals.
Setting unreasonable targets lowers the moral and commitment, hence less productivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
The whole basis of understanding risk in the UK is that it should be Tolerable. The HSE have guidance on what is tolerable and broadly acceptable levels of risk. That is to say there is a level where accidents and fatalities are balanced against measures to reduce them further and they are considered acceptable.
I could tell you how to achieve Ian's goal instantly, close all the railways. I reality though this isn't practicable and would actually result in an increase in accidents across society due to a massive increase in road traffic.
Of course everyone's goal is to have no accidents, but you have to balance this against running an operational railway. The minute you start going too far to reduce worker deaths, you will slow the trains and people will use their cars and the overall impact on society will go up. So yes, i'm affraid there has to be an acceptible level of accidents in this area.
And before you ask, there is evidence that when people stop using the trains there is an increase in road traffic accidents as was shown when the speed restrictions were implemented following the Hatfield crash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
This all depends on what you define as an "accident"?
I am aware of the unforeseeable event etc. also aware that an accident sometimes only becomes an accident when it is reportable to HSE under RIDDOR.
There are lots of company's out there that do not pay for time off work therefore employees tend to remain in work. I even continued working on one occasion when suffering from a sprained ankle for personal reasons.
If an accident is only recorded when RIDDOR kicks in then many slight injuries will not be reported therefore the zero rate can be achieved.
I worked for a transport company on Merseyside during the 90's - buses and trains - and the only accident statistics they were interested in were the "signals passed on red", not the workplace accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hossam
I always tell myself..if we managed to identify and correct the deepest
starter root cause/s of an accident
which is beyond management failure..then at that moment MAYBE we would be able to achieve "Zero Accident".
It seems to be an endless chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
I must say as someine who attended the conference, not the best presentation I have ever attended, but interesting never the less.
The point of what he was saying was really about track worker safety, and yes a zero target is achievable as show several years ago. One problem that exists is the nature of employment of track workers, some serious work is needed in this area I believe. The rail industry has two main areas to work on. Firstly customer safety (those who travel by train) and public safety (those who use the railway but are not passengers). There was a serious event only last week when a lady was killed at a level crossing after her car was hit by a train. Level crossing are a serious issue for the rail industry and much work is being done to address this.
A zero target is not new to the rail industry but is still rather hard to deliver. Please remember his comments are rather eutopian but never the less in certain aspects is achievable because it has been achieved before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
A zero rate is achievable until there is another accident. It's all to do with timescales.
For example 1 in 250000 chance of a plane hitting you in your home. Over which period? If it's daily then we must have planes falling out of the sky. The time frame is very relevant with statistics. We can achieve zero accidents on a day to day or even a week to week basis, but somewhere along the line, it is likely an accident will happen unless all hazards have been eliminated which is not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
But its about aiming for zero and consistently aiming to improve your performance.
There are significant financial aspects to having an LTA. Not many things de-motivate people and reduce production quicker than a lost time accident. You can feel the whole atmosphere of an area change.
By the same principle nobody should ever become an Olympic athlete unless they are guaranteed a gold medal.
It is a never ending task but thats what we are paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
So simple yes or no answer, who believes in " the concept of zero accidents being achievable..."?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.