Not worth the wait I'm afraid, page after page of dross questions and only one change three days to seven. Won't make much difference with the level of non reporting that goes on.

I read it this morning & have sent back my comments, but in my opinion they have missed a great opportunity to refine the existing Regs & have a grown up debate about occupationally related road traffic injuries. Zyggy

Ron - I fully agree. IMHO, it would have been better to have had a wider review on RIDDOR as a whole, incorporating the questions that have just been published. That way, they could have killed two birds with one stone - reviewing whether or not RIDDOR was still fit for purpose, and incorporate the current questions as a proposal for one change.

|'m concerned at the idea that firms find reporting RIDDORs to be a burden - surely in the whole process of dealing with an accident, investigating, putting in place corrective and preventive measures etc, the time taken to report to Contact Centre is an insignificant proportion of the overall time? If reducing reporting triggers from 3 days to 7 days is going to save anyone a worthwhile amount of time, I'd say that business has exactly the kind of problem that RIDDOR is supposed to flag. Accident under-reporting isn't happening becasue of anything that's going to be helped by increasing the time limit: Accident under reporting is happening because 1) Firms don't understand that holiday/weekend days are included in the three 2) Firms don't understand that if they get someone back on light duties, that still counts as "not fit for normal duties" 3) Managers wilfully play with the above definitions because they're measured by the number of reportables in their section, and their pay rise/bonus/continued employment depends on hitting targets 4) Firms wilfully play with the above definitions because a low reportables rate is key to securing contracts. None of these problems are going to be solved by changing the reporting definition. I'm not sure about J Young's point - the IP still has to report his "accident" in the same way he would if it was RIDDOR-able, so I don't really see how making a four day injury non-RIDDOR is going to encourage people to have four days off.

For the vast majority 7 days will mean the individual will be presenting a fit note to HR or will have returned to work after a period of self certified sick. It shouldn't change anything for those who rest up for a couple of days following a minor accident or those who fancy a couple of days off. It could of course go the other way and follow OSHAs line and report on a lost workday basis.

Very much a non event. The amount of revision in the paper is just repalcing three days with seven days nothing else changes. The paper amount to a comment gathering exercise about the change of two work seven replacing three. The amount pf reporting will not improve under the revised reporting timescale employers will simply ignore it. The amount of non-reporting shows the HSE has no wish to enforce the regulations as it has no effect on safety.

Agreed, a lost opportunity to sort out some of the other loose ends that have appeared over the years. All this just to save £200 thousand a year.