I was wondering if anyone has had any experience of the interaction between PUWER and the use of historic machinery (and in particular, the HSE inspectors' view on the application of Reg 11)

The only relevant thread I can find is here: https://forum.iosh.co.uk...f-Vintage-farm-machinery and I am not sure I agree with the last comment on it. Putting modern guards on period equipment in a museum setting might not be reasonable, but it seemingly would be practicable, and PUWER reg. 11 pointedly omits the 'reasonable' requirement.

My concerns are around the use of manually powered printing presses, in a period setting in which it would absolutely not be appropriate to add modern guarding or braking systems. They are only used by skilled, experienced members of staff and I am content that this is sufficient control, but I am concerned over whether stopping at the bottom of the heirarchy (information, instruction, training and supervision) would be seen to be enough.

I would draw comparison with every other "museum" style setting where the equipment of the past is in operation to educate the public e.g. original hand weaving looms etc.

In some the public are within touching distance whilst at others a distance based approach with rails and barriers is adopted.

Those demonstrating being skilled in use and operation of the equipment.

I can only think of one example of an insistence of retro-guarding which is for the door mechanisms on the heritage carriages of the "Hogwarts Express" but that is for protection of the public passengers and not the railway staff.

The document is from 2019 but wonder if it helps? It seems to deal with the issues you have raised

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2018-0356-Response-by-HSE.pdf

An interesting letter regarding entanglement in powered equipment.

The HSE issued revised platen guidance in 2010

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/pis18.htm

Along with pointers for pre-2005 equipment

https://www.hse.gov.uk/printing/machine/safeguarding-printing-presses.htm

The OP will be better placed having sight of the actual press to determine if the above are of benefit.

Personally I am reading powered machinery in the HSE documents.

AK - on a side issue from the main thread, the case law says that dangerous machinery does NOT have to be mechanically powered.

Richard Thomas & Baldwins Ltd v Cummings [1955] A.C. 321

(Redgrave 1976 was very good to me this morning. Second case in pages and pages of case law on Sections 12-16 of the Factories Act 1961!!)

...which explains why one of the first Guidance Notes thay HSE published was on hand and foot operated presses and how to guard these.

In the deep and distant past I operated hand presses - I would NOT have wanted my hand between the tools when the top one was coming down.

Thanks Peter, that guidance document does indeed say in black and white that the dangerous parts of hand and foot operated presses are dangerous parts of machinery and that PUWER reg 11 applies to them.  And I can see why they would want to say that.

But I'm still at a loss as to what definition of machinery is being used!

Watching TV last night sparked a thought - disguised guards.

The owner of an early commercial truck had upgraded their dynamo to a modern alternator.

So people could not see an abomintaion of new technology under the bonnet they fabricated a cover which looked like a period tool-box including a mock leather fixing strap.

That depends on the type of whisk - fork, balloon, push operated, hand cranked, electric.

Thank you all for the replies - I'm glad to see from this discussion that I'm not the only one approaching this with furrowed brow!

I though AK had it with the definition of machinery - which doesn't appear in PUWER but the Supply of Machinery regs do exclude human-powered equipment. But that engineering publication really has thrown a spanner in the works.

Peter, my experience with the local office has not filled me with confidence around their pragmatism - hence becoming annoyingly preoccupied with compliance by semantics rather than just keeping people safe!

Kate et al

My Concise Oxford English Dictionary (so not the actual OED that Judges are supposed to default to when interpreting words that are not defined in legislation) defines "machine" amongst other things as

any device that transmits a force or directs its application

Now many hand operated machines fall within that definition - manual labour is used to create stored energy, e.g. to raise "La Guillotine" to let it fall down on the victim's neck.

....or an old fashioned sewing machine that was entirely operated by human force, and even includes the word "machine" in the title.

Noting what AK says about the case law, perhaps the Judges got round any grey areas in defining a "machine" by instead interpreting what a "dangerous part of machinery" was - the guidance on PUWER comments:

141 The term ‘dangerous part’ has been established in health and safety law through judicial decisions. In practice, this means that if a piece of work equipment could cause injury, while being used in a foreseeable way, it can be considered a dangerous part

...and thence the Judges interpreted the words to be consistent with the aims of the legislation - to protect people from injury.

The problem with PUWER is that it sets a hiearchy of control measures that doesn't easily translate to the use of heritage equipment for the purposes of entertainment and education, perhaps in part as PUWER was a replacement for legislation which in many sectors set an even tougher bar than a mix of what is "practicable" and what is "reasonably practicable".

P

Britannica is more encompasing: machine, device, having a unique purpose, that augments or replaces human or animal effort for the accomplishment of physical tasks.

At this level ramps, pulleys and levers become machines.

Hi Elfin

"Peter, my experience with the local office has not filled me with confidence around their pragmatism - hence becoming annoyingly preoccupied with compliance by semantics rather than just keeping people safe!"

It does of course depend on the local Inspector (and to be honest I think that the overall quality of Inspectors has deteriorated as a result of cuts to HSE budgets etc), but my guess is that MOST will probably be a bit cautious about being over gungho when it comes to vintage machinery in the sort of setting you describe.

My instinct is that Inspectors are more likely to lose the plot when they have clear guidance from their employer and then choose to apply that guidance without thinking about the circumstances that they see in front of them.

Hence, recent blitz campaigns with lots of enforcement notices requiring e.g. RPE for exposure to fumes from welding or dust from woodworking machinery apparently with no attempt by the Inspector to collect evidence as to the ACTUAL reasonably estimable levels of exposure for what might be very intermittent operations.