Following a report by the RSSB, I think it is about time industry sat up and took notice of an insidious trend for the willful under-reporting of accidents and incidents. The report confirms what many inside and outside the industry have known or suspected. Advertising LTI/LTA and RIDDOR rates causes non-reporting and a culture of fear amongst staff and sub-contractors. Remember, each non-reported accident equals a non-investigated accident! I now hope the HSE/RSSB go a step further by dissuading organisations from advertising incident rates by posters, certificates and perhaps using accident/incident data in project tenders. After all, these figures are often massaged by managers and drives the reporting of accident underground - so why be allowed to use them? Interested in your comments. Link to document: http://www.shponline.co....il-riddor-irregularities

Hall, although we are like minded on this important subject it appears from the lack of any other responses we are in the wilderness - hey, ho.

RayRapp "I now hope the HSE/RSSB go a step further by dissuading organisations from advertising incident rates by posters, certificates and perhaps using accident/incident data in project tenders. After all, these figures are often massaged by managers and drives the reporting of accident underground - so why be allowed to use them? Interested in your comments." I agree with what you are saying that they should not be used when tendering for work. But if you wish to be accredited to any construction related schemes then you have to show, accident rates and stats. To provide competence to contractor under CDM (appendix 4) this also requires accident stats. This is how your performance within H&S will be judged. This is a 2 edged sword, lose work or juggle figures and hope not caught out. What other way would you suggest that performance can be judged.

Ray, It's a culture not just confined to the Rail Industry. As mentioned on another topic, I came across it in the building products (manufacturing) industry a while back when I couldn't access sector specific incident rates. There appeared to be an unwillingness to share accident stats with anyone externally (including trade associations) for benchmarking purposes, in case the business was identified and lost subsequent supply contracts to the construction industry.

quote=stevel] I agree with what you are saying that they should not be used when tendering for work. But if you wish to be accredited to any construction related schemes then you have to show, accident rates and stats. To provide competence to contractor under CDM (appendix 4) this also requires accident stats. This is how your performance within H&S will be judged. This is a 2 edged sword, lose work or juggle figures and hope not caught out. What other way would you suggest that performance can be judged.

Bigrab "The sooner we get away from these negative measurements to more positive performance indicators the better. I am not holding my breath, it's always easier to go down the route of laying blame at someone's door rather that fixing the inherent problems in our management systems." This would be a better way, it has taken me 5 yrs to get the directors to see the benefits of training and system improvements. They can now see the benefits, this has reduced our accident rate to well below the industry norm, not only in reportable but actual accidents and near misses. But when as a company you place these figures before PC, you have a Spanish inquisition. All's well when you can prove what you have placed before them, but it is frustrating.

Ray you are a good man really, thanks for reminding me to go down the pub. Have downloaded the RSSB document and will read it when I have time, hopefully tomorrow. In the mean time off to the club for a few beers.

Kieran, with respect, I don't really know what your point is with regards to CIRAS. I'm not convinced CIRAS has completely succeeded in addressing the issue of 'fear' from reporting accidents and incidents, otherwise the RSSB report would not have articulated the following: 'Hundreds of workplace injuries were not declared by Network Rail over a five-year period because staff and contractors were fearful of the consequences if they reported them, an independent report has concluded.' Furthermore, it is not 'safety professionals' who have failed, but senior management who have failed to wake up and smell the coffee. They have been either misguided or content in believing that accident data has indicated that there are fewer incidents, which is clearly not the case and due to gross under-reporting. Again, I don't really understand your comments about 'learning from relevant research'. I and many of my colleagues are acutely aware of the issues emanating from under-reporting and massaging the stats. I have seen or been made aware of covering up accidents, bonuses paid to managers for not having an LTI/RIDDOR, threats made to staff if an accident occurred on their watch. It is these insidious practices which I am trying to draw attention to and has nothing to do with behavioral safety or research, which I am well acquainted with thank you.

Keiran, Human Factors is not something that has been pushed into the background as your report indicated. The RSSB has a departmental function which looks at Human Factors and is staffed by some very competent and professional individuals who take the matter very seriouisly. They produce a lot of research into human factors issues which has led to some qwuite inovative working methods and equipment. So to say Human Factors is not taken seriouisly is quite incorrect.

Before we go off and talk about under reporting this needs to be put into a little bit of context. The accidents have been reported by Network Rail into the industry reporting system SMIS. The problem has been non reporting of RIDDOR reportables to the HSE. It is important to understand this is how Network Rail failed to advise the HSE of reportable accidents it does not mean they have not recorded or investigated the accidents.

It should be understood where the problem is. In the rail industry there is a system known as SMIS where accidents are recorded onto a national database which gives Network Rail and each train operating company access to input details of not only accidents to the individual but operational incidents such as SPADs, derailments and near misses. This provides the industry with a wealth of data in order to measure future improvements in safety performance (among other things). The question has been that Network Rail failed to report all notifiable accidents under RIDDOR. That is how performance and reward has not been found to be the basis for this problem, it is a matter of simply not reporting and nothing to do with bonuses etc.

Ray, I totally agree there are many who fail to report accidents to RIDDOR, it is one of the weaknesses of any system which relies on someone who may be guilty of something to avoid telling on themselves, its human nature, perhaps thats what is wrong with RIDDOR. The original posting gave the impression that there was a history of not reporting or investigating accidemts on the railway. That is incorrect, they are reported and investigated in the vast majority of cases, just not reported under RIDDOR, which uis what RSSB's report was about so we need to be clear what the report was actually about, not investigating only recording. As to the point of bomuses and thier effect on H&S, that is a cultural issue that must be carefully managed when setting objectives to ensure there is no diliberate hidding if the true picture, human nature I'm afraid.

Ray, I am about to read the RSSB report in full, all 99 pages of it. Have glanced at it quickly this afternoon but will study it in full and no doubt wish to raise some issues from it. The authors, Messrs Anson Jack, Colin Dennis, Huw Gibson, and Siona Pitman are all very knowledgable individuals and I look forward to reading it. How they make it 99 pages though fills me with wonder. Have no fear tghis one will go on for some days yet, and Ray I enjoy the little 'disagreements'

Bob, I'm free...

Jim, the advantage with seven days for reporting is that it reduces the likelihood of someone signing themselves off and affecting the figures. Any longer you would be seeing a doctor and getting a more realistic approach. I've seen many trivial accidents escalate to >3 day reportables and can, to a certain extent, understand why some companies are reluctant to report. My issue is not with reporting or recording accidents but how the data is received and used. Not many of us will have enough RIDDOR accidents to trend but may have enough minor accidents to analyse and ensure it's captured in upcoming audits/improvement plans. On the other side of the coin the HSE have enough data to begin to understand where there priorities lie. Is it tainted by under reporting? Probably to a certain extent but it's difficult to hide the major accidents that will inevitably be produced by this type of culture.