Another RNLI Boat Out of Use

[RichardS]

Such as?

Go on - real life examples of H&S Executive rulings here in the UK, not newspaper or hearsay examples of insurance company dummy throwing.

Errrrrr ..... have you actually read this thread?

Richard

 

[RichardS]

I can assure you that military training is now conducted under H&S regs. There is simply no reason to hurt people when safe alternatives are available. And thats a good thing, because training soldiers is expensive and takes time. Its much better not to break the ones you already have.

Very true and it's also quite distressing having to explain their deaths or LCIs to their NoK, but some that possibly haven't done much with their own lives seem very free with those of others.

Very astute editing there Leccy .... I also heard the sound of lapping waves.

As for the military training conducted under H & S regs, has anyone suggested otherwise? That's what I call real health and safety. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[penberth3]

Errrrrr ..... have you actually read this thread?

Richard

...Still waiting for your examples of alleged HSE nonsense.

 

[RichardS]

...Still waiting for your examples of alleged HSE nonsense.

Why do you think we're discussing step ladders and reams of photocopier paper? They're not subjects which would normally attract such a dedicated following.

Richard

 

[Bru]

Why do you think we're discussing step ladders and reams of photocopier paper?

Ah, so you choose to ignore the real world example of somebody suffering a permanent injury lifting a very close equivalent to a ream of paper due to not having been trained properly then?

As for stepladders, statistics are a little hard to come by because the HSE does not differentiate between ladder types (regarding ALL ladders as potentially hazardous) but data gathered by ROSPA indicates that stepladders are, in fact, the most common cause of non-fatal falls from height, beating free standing A frame ladders by a whisker and rather more than double the number of falls from standard ladders.

And according to a slightly dated Loughborough University study I happened across, across all sectors of industry low falls, e.g. those from step ladders etc. account for rather more than half of all falls from height between 1995 and 2000

Significantly however, the study discovered that low falls are far more likely to result in head injuries because people falling from a low height are much more likely to hit the ground oir floor with their head whereas in a high fall they more often land on their feet and suffer lower limb injuries

Stepladders, in other words, are actually more dangerous than tall ladders. Fact. (Which I will premptively qualify by saying as far as overall injuries are concerned. There are, of course, significantly more fatal injuries from high falls from tall ladders than from stepladders)

So as penberth3 said, where's your actual examples of actual HSE nonsense?

 

[Blue Sunray]

Ah, so you choose to ignore the real world example of somebody suffering a permanent injury lifting a very close equivalent to a ream of paper due to not having been trained properly then?

As for stepladders, statistics are a little hard to come by because the HSE does not differentiate between ladder types (regarding ALL ladders as potentially hazardous) but data gathered by ROSPA indicates that stepladders are, in fact, the most common cause of non-fatal falls from height, beating free standing A frame ladders by a whisker and rather more than double the number of falls from standard ladders.

And according to a slightly dated Loughborough University study I happened across, across all sectors of industry low falls, e.g. those from step ladders etc. account for rather more than half of all falls from height between 1995 and 2000

Significantly however, the study discovered that low falls are far more likely to result in head injuries because people falling from a low height are much more likely to hit the ground oir floor with their head whereas in a high fall they more often land on their feet and suffer lower limb injuries

Stepladders, in other words, are actually more dangerous than tall ladders. Fact. (Which I will premptively qualify by saying as far as overall injuries are concerned. There are, of course, significantly more fatal injuries from high falls from tall ladders than from stepladders)

So as penberth3 said, where's your actual examples of actual HSE nonsense?

:encouragement:

 

[Thistle]

I think you're right. Without checking, when the HASAW Act appeared in 1974, ISTR there were 20 people a week being killed at work. Still three people a week being killed in the construction industry. Anyone think that's acceptable in the 21st century?

Is the decrease a result of the Act or of the decline of mining and most of the country's heavy industry?

 

[RichardS]

Ah, so you choose to ignore the real world example of somebody suffering a permanent injury lifting a very close equivalent to a ream of paper due to not having been trained properly then?

As for stepladders, statistics are a little hard to come by because the HSE does not differentiate between ladder types (regarding ALL ladders as potentially hazardous) but data gathered by ROSPA indicates that stepladders are, in fact, the most common cause of non-fatal falls from height, beating free standing A frame ladders by a whisker and rather more than double the number of falls from standard ladders.

And according to a slightly dated Loughborough University study I happened across, across all sectors of industry low falls, e.g. those from step ladders etc. account for rather more than half of all falls from height between 1995 and 2000

Significantly however, the study discovered that low falls are far more likely to result in head injuries because people falling from a low height are much more likely to hit the ground oir floor with their head whereas in a high fall they more often land on their feet and suffer lower limb injuries

Stepladders, in other words, are actually more dangerous than tall ladders. Fact. (Which I will premptively qualify by saying as far as overall injuries are concerned. There are, of course, significantly more fatal injuries from high falls from tall ladders than from stepladders)

So as penberth3 said, where's your actual examples of actual HSE nonsense?

I am certain that someone, somewhere, will have suffered a fatal injury as a result of a paper cut so perhaps we should start giving office employees training in how to avoid paper cuts. :ambivalence:

It's time to get a grip boys. :encouragement:

(To give a little context, I should add that I am a committed non-Nanny State devotee and would, for example, reduce the MOT to 5 basic safety checks, at most, which would take 5 minutes every couple of years. This has been discussed ad nauseam in The Lounge but it's not SB fodder. )

Richard

 

[Daydream believer]

And they were killed on property owned and managed by various governmental bodies.
Often the roads in question are overloaded beyond their design parameters... (by up to ten times designed capacity). Yet the people who manage and operate the roads seem to walk away from any responsibility under the HASWA. No one else could get away with such a death/injury rate.

Believe it or not people are trained to drive in those conditions. The problem is ( and i am sure that you have seen instances to support it) many simply ignore the training. Bit like some attitudes to H & S, they think that they know better

 

[doug748]

Is the decrease a result of the Act or of the decline of mining and most of the country's heavy industry?

Heavy industry may have declined but I understand that this has been offset by the amount of photocopy paper being carried around.

 

[RichardS]

Believe it or not people are trained to drive in those conditions. The problem is ( and i am sure that you have seen instances to support it) many simply ignore the training. Bit like some attitudes to H & S, they think that they know better

Absolutely right. All this trivial training is a total waste of time. If some people are too stupid to know how to drive safely when their life is at stake, despite all that training, they are almost certainly to stupid to know how to use step-ladders or lift a ream of paper. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

I don't need to go anywhere with it. The absurdity of some H & S requirements is self-evident, surely?

Not really, and I still don't see what a battlefield has to do with it. Should we stop wearing lifejackets because the Titanic sank?

 

[doug748]

The HS executive department at the RYA have just released a video on this very topic:

It warms your very cockles

 

[Bru]

I am certain that someone, somewhere, will have suffered a fatal injury as a result of a paper cut so perhaps we should start giving office employees training in how to avoid paper cuts.

reductio ad absurdum

Or for those hard of Latin (I was, after all, a Grammar School boy!) ...

Your argument is ridiculous

But if one was to carry out a risk assessment of handling papoer viz paper cuts, it would run something like ...

Activity
Handling single sheets of paper

Known hazards
Medium: Paper cuts

Possible consequences
Low: Slight discomfort

Measures to be taken
None

Training required
None

Critically, for the hard of understanding, the identification of a hazard is alwats accompained by an assessment of the consequences of that hazard and the further decision making process on whether action needs to be taken is based on a combination of both of those factors

Thus a low (or rare) risk with very serious consequences requires action whereas a high (or common) risk with minimal if any consequences rarely if ever does

A paper cut doesn't put people in hospital or lead to lost work days. Falling off step ladders does, all too frequently

Thank the Gods for the Nanny State say I because if it were not for the nanny state people like you would still be killing people like me

 

[Blue Sunray]

Not really, and I still don't see what a battlefield has to do with it.

Neither does he. Having been there, there were in fact, particularly in the most recent unpleasantness in AFG, issues particularly with (IMHO) overly prescriptive requirements for PPE actually increasing risk, but that is squarely down to failings in the CoC influenced by some ill considered coroners' comments and political direction, nothing to do with the HSE. I did have to feel for the poor SO who had spend time drafting the case get clearance for the RE divers to remove their body armour whilst diving.

Doesn't alter that fact that RichradS's posts reek of ignorance though.

 

[RichardS]

Thank the Gods for the Nanny State say I because if it were not for the nanny state people like you would still be killing people like me

That's exactly right .... which is why I raised it.

We will never be able to agree on these matters because you thank God for the Nanny State and I say that it has gone too far and, in the event of an accident or similar, people like you should be prepared to accept personal responsibility for their own stupidity/laziness/inattentiveness/recklessness (delete as appropriate).

Some forumites will be even more Nanny State than you, and some will be even less Nanny State than me. Thus it ever was.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Neither does he. Having been there, there were in fact, particularly in the most recent unpleasantness in AFG, issues particularly with (IMHO) overly prescriptive requirements for PPE actually increasing risk, but that is squarely down to failings in the CoC influenced by some ill considered coroners' comments and political direction, nothing to do with the HSE. I did have to feel for the poor SO who had spend time drafting the case get clearance for the RE divers to remove their body armour whilst diving.

Doesn't alter that facts that RichradS's posts reek of ignorance though.

We've been discussing the fallout from Seajet's post #8 which is nothing to do with whatever it is that you're on about.

My ignorance presumably comes from the initials after my name .... which signify my possession of one of the highest professional H & S qualifications in the UK.

Richard

 

[AntarcticPilot]

reductio ad absurdum

Or for those hard of Latin (I was, after all, a Grammar School boy!) ...

Your argument is ridiculous

But if one was to carry out a risk assessment of handling papoer viz paper cuts, it would run something like ...

Activity
Handling single sheets of paper

Known hazards
Medium: Paper cuts

Possible consequences
Low: Slight discomfort

Measures to be taken
None

Training required
None

Critically, for the hard of understanding, the identification of a hazard is alwats accompained by an assessment of the consequences of that hazard and the further decision making process on whether action needs to be taken is based on a combination of both of those factors

Thus a low (or rare) risk with very serious consequences requires action whereas a high (or common) risk with minimal if any consequences rarely if ever does

A paper cut doesn't put people in hospital or lead to lost work days. Falling off step ladders does, all too frequently

Thank the Gods for the Nanny State say I because if it were not for the nanny state people like you would still be killing people like me

Having been in a situation where paper cuts were part of a H&S assessment , can I point out that the hazards are greater than you state?

First of all, the assessment of a risk has two dimensions, hazard and risk. The first describes the potential consequences, the latter describes how likely they are. Mitigation measures take both into account.

So, for paper cuts, you have:

High risk, low hazard - paper cut causing minor discomfort. All of us have suffered paper cuts; they are common.
Low risk, high hazard - paper cut getting infected resulting in serious illness, loss of digits or even loss of life.

In the UK, the latter is very low risk indeed, and the mitigation strategy would be to recommend hand-washing in the event of blood being drawn. But in a tropical country, it might be a much higher risk, and handwashing and the application of a dressing might be mandatory.

There is a further dimension - the level of hazard may vary from person to person. For most of us, the loss of blood from a paper cut is negligible; the worst that will happen is a few small bloodstains on a sheet of paper! But a haemophiliac or a person on medication to control blood clotting might well have a more severe response, requiring greater precautions such as wearing gloves while handling paper. As H&S requires that both employer and employee take responsibility for H&S, it would be up to the employee to ensure that the employer knew of their situation, and so that mitigation measures could be put in place.

I've used the example of paper cuts just as an illustration, albeit a real-world one. But the point is that risk asessment looks at all the possible contingencies, not just the most likely. And if something is high hazard, you take measures to reduce the risk of it happening.

In the situation in question, the hazard is very high, up to and including loss of life, the risk is moderate to high and the activity is inessential. The obvious mitigation strategy that any responsible employer would put in place is "don't do it until in secure surroundings with assistance at hand".

 

[RichardS]

Having been in a situation where paper cuts were part of a H&S assessment , can I point out that the hazards are greater than you state?

First of all, the assessment of a risk has two dimensions, hazard and risk. The first describes the potential consequences, the latter describes how likely they are. Mitigation measures take both into account.

So, for paper cuts, you have:

High risk, low hazard - paper cut causing minor discomfort. All of us have suffered paper cuts; they are common.
Low risk, high hazard - paper cut getting infected resulting in serious illness, loss of digits or even loss of life.

In the UK, the latter is very low risk indeed, and the mitigation strategy would be to recommend hand-washing in the event of blood being drawn. But in a tropical country, it might be a much higher risk, and handwashing and the application of a dressing might be mandatory.

There is a further dimension - the level of hazard may vary from person to person. For most of us, the loss of blood from a paper cut is negligible; the worst that will happen is a few small bloodstains on a sheet of paper! But a haemophiliac or a person on medication to control blood clotting might well have a more severe response, requiring greater precautions such as wearing gloves while handling paper. As H&S requires that both employer and employee take responsibility for H&S, it would be up to the employee to ensure that the employer knew of their situation, and so that mitigation measures could be put in place.

I've used the example of paper cuts just as an illustration, albeit a real-world one. But the point is that risk asessment looks at all the possible contingencies, not just the most likely. And if something is high hazard, you take measures to reduce the risk of it happening.

In the situation in question, the hazard is very high, up to and including loss of life, the risk is moderate to high and the activity is inessential. The obvious mitigation strategy that any responsible employer would put in place is "don't do it until in secure surroundings with assistance at hand".

A brilliant post. I don't think there can be anything left to be said.

Richard

 

[Blue Sunray]

Having been in a situation where paper cuts were part of a H&S assessment , can I point out that the hazards are greater than you state?

First of all, the assessment of a risk has two dimensions, hazard and risk. The first describes the potential consequences, the latter describes how likely they are. Mitigation measures take both into account.

So, for paper cuts, you have:

High risk, low hazard - paper cut causing minor discomfort. All of us have suffered paper cuts; they are common.
Low risk, high hazard - paper cut getting infected resulting in serious illness, loss of digits or even loss of life.

In the UK, the latter is very low risk indeed, and the mitigation strategy would be to recommend hand-washing in the event of blood being drawn. But in a tropical country, it might be a much higher risk, and handwashing and the application of a dressing might be mandatory.

There is a further dimension - the level of hazard may vary from person to person. For most of us, the loss of blood from a paper cut is negligible; the worst that will happen is a few small bloodstains on a sheet of paper! But a haemophiliac or a person on medication to control blood clotting might well have a more severe response, requiring greater precautions such as wearing gloves while handling paper. As H&S requires that both employer and employee take responsibility for H&S, it would be up to the employee to ensure that the employer knew of their situation, and so that mitigation measures could be put in place.

I've used the example of paper cuts just as an illustration, albeit a real-world one. But the point is that risk asessment looks at all the possible contingencies, not just the most likely. And if something is high hazard, you take measures to reduce the risk of it happening.

In the situation in question, the hazard is very high, up to and including loss of life, the risk is moderate to high and the activity is inessential. The obvious mitigation strategy that any responsible employer would put in place is "don't do it until in secure surroundings with assistance at hand".

At the risk of feeding someone's slightly Walter Mitty obsession with battlefields a good illustration of this is the practice of not shaving in the jungle, there are of course other reasons as well, but a significant one is the likelihood of infection in/of small cuts.