Posted By Chris Jerman
Ian, I know that your post will probably attract a host of links to generic assessments for these activities - but I'd like to respond to your question 'is this a path we should be going down?' My view in short is - no. Longer answer is to examine what the purpose of risk assessment is - or more importantly what it was intended for. Given that I was involved at the time (yes, I'm older than I look) I speak with some conviction and knowledge. What the HSE wanted was employers to look at their businesses and seek out where there were failing controls or a complete lack of controls and fix the problem - and provide some evidence. Additionally, moving from being a workplace inspectorate to a management 'systems advisor' approach, they wanted documentation that showed them that the employer was 'on top of things'. They NEVER intended us to risk assess the blindingly obvious. Now, to my mind playing football etc IS the blindingly obvious..Why would you want a risk assessment to tell you that? If you decided that you wanted to introduce a new sport - say target rifle shooting, a risk assessment would help you to decide on the suitability and practicability of the venture - but what don't you know about regular sports like rugby and football that you've been playing for decades? What I would recommend is that you have clear guidelines for sports teachers covering the school's practices etc. These probably exist as national guidelines anyway. It's about demonstrating best practice in running the activity and what to do when the wheels come off, rather than producing pointless risk assessments. Now there will undoubtedly be howls of 'heretic!' following this, but that's because too many people see the function of risk assessment as providing the only legal defence and that waving a piece of paper around means that it's all going to be fine.

OK, here's the assessment. Contact sports - rough, potential for impact, resulting in fractured limbs (nasty and painful) pretty common, difficult to exercise full control over, professional players set poor example. Risk - oh, let's say Medium. See the point? - I don't.

OK, so why in 2007 do some activities that are patently obvious require assessments eg FLT driving? Well, put simply - they shouldn't, but given that this requirement came out 15 years ago and people still haven't done them, events have really overtaken us. Now we have to do them because, well, because we have to do them. If we'd done them in 1992, we may well find that a decade and a half on, all we have to do is implement best practice and provide assurance that we are doing so. Which takes us full circle to the point that we use risk assessment to show that we are doing it well. When was the last time that you saw an example risk assessment of a task being done badly? Oh oh, here come the generics ......

Posted By Ron Hunter
I do also support Chris's p.o.v.!

Posted By Pete48
Chris, many thanks for the best picture that has been put in my head for some years. I will now think of you each morning as I stand just behind that yellow painted line on the platform. And as I watch all those pencil sharpeners (the people that is not the kit) rush headlong towards oblivion, I will observe that it is the height of the risk assessment files they are carrying around that actually prevents them from seeing the unprotected edge that will be their downfall.
I just loved your example; proportionality indeed!
Sorry Ian for hijacking the thread. I just couldn't let it pass without comment.

Posted By Chris Jerman
The only bonds are the ones that we make for ourselves as a profession. I have been 'doing this' for many many years and I have seen the way that it has changed over that time. I read these pages sometimes with total dismay at the use of language and the misuse of some of the principles. I can't help wondering if the 'safety schools' out there have forgotten some of the basics.

In the main, the regs etc that we have now were born of an industrial age; They were intended for that purpose. Life has changed and the HSE are very honest about the fact that the application of those rules needs to change. We have a much softer employment demographic. (OK yes still some steelworks and mills etc and yes too many people die in warehouses before you all start throwing your copies of Redgraves at me) but we've come a long way since the 1800s and the ind rev!

Trying to enforce (force) PUWER or LOLER on a newsagent is patently nuts. Good safe business - fine, but come on!

However, the popular press seem to call the tune nowadays and the whole conkers bonkers thing arose because of people's fear. It is our job to stand at the front and stop this rot and be confident about what we know. I wonder if they still teach 'proportionality' at safety school.

Many thanks for your comments. I like to raise a smile. This stuff isn't hard - it's just not always obvious.

Old Bloke

Posted By Crim
Hello all,

I use generic and past risk assessments for reference information when carrying out new risk assessments, however I believe that a clear sheet of paper is best as it gets the brain cells working.

If you look on the HSE website there is a section on "Myth of the month" and this month it's risk assessments.

The HSE advocate the 5 steps and to keep it simple.

Have a look and I'm sure you will be able to guide yourself through.

By the way my son's primary school (year 4-age 9) are visiting the local high school (sports college) to do PE. Perhaps you should consider this in your risk assessment?