Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Musselwhite18837  
#1 Posted : 19 November 2010 11:11:43(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Musselwhite18837

have been asked a question and cant seem to find any sort of definitive answer, what height constitutes a trip hazard? is this just a purely subjective subject or does some guidance exist that i have not located yet? we are carrying out a refurb project for a client that has stated they want all trip hazards removed when we clear the site but they will not define what they see as a trip hazard, any help/advice would be welcomed Thanks, Jon
bob youel  
#2 Posted : 19 November 2010 12:20:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

A trip hazard can be many things and there is no specific example that I know of that can be referenced as a definitive answer A flat surface can be a trip hazard in certain circumstances whereas a large tree root is not a trip hazard in other circumstances get some clarity
JohnW  
#3 Posted : 19 November 2010 12:37:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

Height? Trip? Good grief, yiu mean what height in mm can a human trip on? :o))) As bob says you can trip on a flat surface, especially if it's a floor that has been treated to make it non-slip! I remember, after someone slipped, getting an office staircase treated with strips of rough tape material to reduce risk of slipping on the steps, within 24 hours a girl had 'tripped', managed to grab the banister but still fell awkwardly almost breaking her arm and banging her head on the wall. On investigation she said she was hurrying down the stairs and her foot got 'stuck' to the step, not adhesive or anything, it was just the high level of friction of her shoe with the non-slip material made her fall forward, could have been much worse outcome. We didn't change the stairs but put up warning signs for a few weeks 'don't hurry on the non-slip steps', till folks got used to the stairs. John
firesafety101  
#4 Posted : 19 November 2010 12:46:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

As can be gathered by the above responses people have differing perception of risk and especially so where trip hazards are concerned. I advise you speak to the client and ask what exactly is his perception. At the end of the project before you leave the premises ask again to ensure you have followed the client's instructions according to his perception.
freelance safety  
#5 Posted : 19 November 2010 12:52:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety

It is purely subjective and should be evaluated by the perceived risks. Agree with Chris; get the client to be a bit more forthcoming with their views. Worth noting that from a civil liability side of things, many councils have set levels for what they perceive to be a trip hazard. I’m unsure if this will help you in this instance though.
redken  
#6 Posted : 19 November 2010 13:26:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

My mum used to have saying along the lines of tripping over a straw and a hen kicking you. I think it was a reference to accident prone people
Invictus  
#7 Posted : 19 November 2010 13:29:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

According to information on the HSE web page anything 10mm or above is considered a trip hazard.
jwk  
#8 Posted : 22 November 2010 11:56:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Just like to endorse the point about slip-resistant surfaces. At one of my former employers' care homes we had a very slip-resistant finish applied to all the common corridors, and I nearly came to grief on a number of occasions. What was especially difficult was that the floor wasn't entirely level, so gauging the point at which my feet would come into contact with the floor was quite hard. Whatever HSE guidance says tripping hazards don't need to be 10, or in fact any number of mm, John
nikam1  
#9 Posted : 23 November 2010 11:23:45(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
nikam1

Yeas John, Why is it necessary to express every hazard, like in this case trip hazard in something measurable. As per HSE guidance even if one ensures nothing is more than 10 mm height, still there is chance of being tripped because of something less than 10 mm. Wonder if there is any level set for slippery surface as well...Like moisture on floor or amount of water, grease, oil per square meter to called it slippery surface.... :)
Bob Shillabeer  
#10 Posted : 23 November 2010 13:24:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

A tripping hazard can be in two phases, a permanant hazard and a temporary hazard. A temp hazard such as a trailing cable should also be controlled and prevented (that is not 10mm high either) so it is a case of not how high something must be before it can become a tripping hazard but what is the potential for someone to trip over it. That is why the HSE has only made suggestions not set out a specific hight.
DP  
#11 Posted : 23 November 2010 13:43:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
DP

Bob makes a noteworthy point regarding the status of the tripping hazard with regards to a temporary state - the cable is a very good example too - I know of a case where it came very close to prosecution with regards to cables and cable covers. An elderly lady tripped over such a cable with the correct covers in place, fixed to the floor and was highly visible - the time period for the cable was the point. It had been there for 3 weeks in a reasonably high footfall area - the enforcer was of the opinion a perminant solution would have been more appropreate. One month it was planned for. Risk assessment again? What is it, whos it going to effect and how long will it be there?
Phil Grace  
#12 Posted : 23 November 2010 14:25:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

DP just got his comment before me....! From the perspective of civil liability claims the exact height of the trip hazard is often not the key issue. The proof revolves around negiligence not the height of the trip hazard. So, considering some plausible scenarios: a) A small i.e. low trip hazard that has been present in a much travelled location which has not been subject to regular and routine inspection could amount to negiligence. b) On a rarely used pathway that is part of a regular inspection programme (which can be proven to have been taking place) even a trip hazard of some size could well be regarded a situation that is not evidence of negiligence on the part of duty holder e.g. landowner, property owner. c) In a workplace scenario a trip hazard that has been reported and/or which occurs routinely e.g. during a particular work activity (and is not addressed) will almost certianly be regarded as evidence of negiligence. Hope this helps. Phil
Ron Hunter  
#13 Posted : 24 November 2010 13:03:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Hmmm.. applying dictionary meanings to arrive at a definition would suggest that a "trip hazard" is something (anything) with the potential to cause an accidental misstep threatening (or causing) a fall. As others say, a very small slope change in level (e.g. at a slap through or new opening) could (and does in my experience) constitute such a hazard. A common or garden threshold plate would meet the above definition! Without knowing the nature of the work you're carrying out for your Client, is he just attempting to wrap-up in fancy words that he wants you to clean the place up before you leave?
peter gotch  
#14 Posted : 24 November 2010 13:14:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Jon Local authorities have varying intervention levels for street repairs. Typically 25 or 40mm.
firesafety101  
#15 Posted : 24 November 2010 13:50:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Put up a sign warning people of the trip hazard and then watch them all fall over while reading the sign :-) (I know - how puerile ?)
Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 27 January 2022 15:32:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Reported (again) - hidden hyperlink

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
peter gotch on 28/01/2022(UTC), peter gotch on 28/01/2022(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#17 Posted : 27 January 2022 15:32:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Reported (again) - hidden hyperlink

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
peter gotch on 28/01/2022(UTC), peter gotch on 28/01/2022(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.