[Closed] Silly Billy Health and Safety RULES

well, that's plain kerrazy

surely stiff doors aren't allowed ? 😯

Yeah, we should go back to the days of no H&S stuff really. I mean, y'know, it's all just common sense isn't it? And hardly anybody really got hurt. And if they did, well, they learned their bloody lesson.

meh no real harm in it and does cut down on minor injuries.

Someone has not been taught how to do a proper risk assessment. Or is just to lazy.

To bloody right no one is allowed onto the track until track section is clear how can you possibly think thats a bad idea?!

Not where i am from dropped off at various points no pronlem. In cities and towns its to keep the busses schedules on track.

[quote=joshvegas ]In cities and towns its to keep the busses schedules on track.and keep traffic flowing, prevent buses from stopping at junctions and passengers from jumping in front of passing vehicles.

It's crap really...can't we allow potential bus users and drivers to just do their own risk assessment there and then? It's all just common sense. There's no need to be such a namby-pamby jobsworth about the whole thing.

its not against H&S to drive full pelt into a low sun so you cant see anything in front of you.

how that one?

I was lazy scotroutes you are perfectly correct.

imagine not being able to send children up chimneys ind in the mill machinery while it runs. Gone mad i tell thee

[quote=deadlydarcy ]It's crap really...can't we allow potential bus users and drivers to just do their own risk assessment there and then? It's all just common sense. There's no need to be such a namby-pamby jobsworth about the whole thing.Fair dos, but we'd need to involve an arbitrator in the event that unanimity wasn't forthcoming. Do you think the UN could spare one person per bus once they've solved the punishment/pudding issue?

Yeah, we should go back to the days of no H&S stuff really.

One of my In-laws used to work for the HSE.

He reckons 75% of what people moan is "elf and safety gone mad" is either imposed by insurance requirement or company policy based on the cost of losing x number of days every year due to sickness from work related injuries.

The actual health and safety rules really have made places like factories and building sites far less dangerous places to work.

Rail staff at stations are not allowed onto the tracks to retriev personal items of passengers even when they know no trains are due.They must contact control and ask for permision, then awit permision to be granted

based on the chaos of reality vs the timetable it sounds very sensible to me

How we miss those jolly good old days...

Yeah, but, stuff GOT DONE! We didn't have any eejits with clipboards and fluorescent vests stopping us from even putting a ladder against a wall to do a bit of painting. Nothing has had more of an impact on productivity of the UK than bloody H&S silliness.

42 people lost their lives due to slips/trips or fall at work 2013/14.And 1.5 million working days were lost from injuries.
It's all a silly waste of time.

Ok, so people die occasionally. It happens EVERY DAY. And sometimes it's at work. Shit happens. Let's just all get on with doing our jobs without being slowed down by stupid rules.

Fingers crossed.

In my local Job Centre all of the desk bound staff have hi-viz vests on the back of their chairs. This is because the car park, directly outside the building, is shared with the general public. Apparently it's a disciplinary offence to walk from the building to your car without your vest on.

H+s is a good thing. How its interpreted by insurance company's isn't.

42 people lost their lives due to slips/trips or fall at work 2013/14.

They should have been looking where they where going not looking at a clipboard trying to tick things off while wearing thing anti cut kevlar gloves then.

"No trains are due" but there may be an additional unscheduled/late train. Doesn't sound that unreasonable to me.

I did once have a jobsworth try to stop me taking a photo in a shopping centre on the basis of "health and safety of the buildings" which made me laugh, before I told him he was an idiot making up such ridiculous bollocks. Hardly fair to blame H&S for some idiots making up stupid rules though.

I think it's completely sensible that rail staff aren't allowed to jump on the tracks as they see fit. What if they've made a mistake re 'knowing no trains are due'?

If there's one thing I hate more than health it's bloody safety. If Clarkson was PM he'd sort all this nonsense out.

Apparently it's a disciplinary offence to walk from the building to your car without your vest on.

Perfect example. Somebody needs to work out just how much time is wasted putting on and taking off those vests and then translate that into how much of OUR TAX is being wasted on such silliness.

I spent a looooong time working in the construction industry. I'm a qualified H&S rep. I've done pleanty of other training on this too.

Here's your problem:
If everyone could be guaranteed to work safely and with common sense then we wouldn't need these rules.

But obviously that's impossible. People are idiots and think they know it all.
So we have to legislate for the idiots, or, alternatively, they'll keep killing and injuring themselves.

I knew there was things that, if I was caught doing them, would result in instant dismissal. I know of people that have been dismissed for doing just that. Which seems very harsh, yes. But I also know of at least two dead people, one with life changing injuries and at least three with missing fingers. All of whom did something stupid.
My former employers, Hanson Aggregates, would repeat time after time that they'd spend any money necessary to make the job safer. People were rewarded for thinking of safer working practices. They also said they'd rather sack us than kill or injure us. Which seems very fair to me.

Most people that go on like the OP have little or no knowledge of what H&S entails. They think there's just some draconian book of stupid rules, and that they know better and can do what they like. These are the people that get killed.

I imagine elf & safety gawn mad is infuriating for the evil cigar smoking mill owners who are annoyed that they're not allowed to grind up little kiddies for a laugh anymore, but quite good for the drones, as any time not actually doing work but participating in daft PC GAWN MAD training days etc whilst still getting paid must be blessed relief.

[b]People are idiots[/b] .... they'll keep killing and injuring themselves.

Where's the problem?

People are idiots .... they'll keep killing and injuring [s]themselves[/s] their staff.

Where's the problem?

That they wouldn't be idiotic enough to sign a disclaimer to absolve any blame being directed at their employer for anything idiotic they may do?(not that disclaimers stand up in court)

That's why they do H&S.

If everyone could be guaranteed to work safely and with common sense then we wouldn't need these rules.

I agree with PP, which doesn't happen very often.

Don't mix up H&S rules with paranoid middle managers terrified of an insurance claim.

sharkattack - Member

Where's the problem?

If they get run over by a train, it may cause me to be late

Most people that go on like the OP have little or no knowledge of what H&S entails. They think there's just some draconian book of stupid rules, and that they know better and can do what they like. These are the people that get killed.

There s common sence health and safety and just stupid rules,Health and safety rules say safety glases should be worn if there is a foresable risk of injury to the eyes, working in an empty shop has little to zero risk, same with gloves and trolleys and also hi viz vests, strange how health and safety doesnt seem to cover or have an intrest in company vehicle drivers, training, safety etc, same with lgv drivers,and trucks.Why doent mil men have to wear gloves and safety boots, serious risk of dropping a glass bootle and risk of deep lacerations,window clearers using poles to wah windows, risk of smashing dislodging window panes or hanging baskets, trip hazard of hose pipes feeding them. and the list goes on.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/top10myths.htm

And I'll bet people keep making new ones.

There will always be stupid, awkward or just plain obstructive people who use H&S as an excuse to do stupid, pointless things.

There are also a huge number of ignorant people who don't really understand the impact that not following rules leads to and will moan about it. Until it affects them and then they'll be looking to point the finger and blame those who didn't ensure that the rules were followed even if the person injured chose to ignore them.

Personally, I don't fancy ever having to have been responsible for someone who's injured themselves or worse even if it wasn't my fault.

"No trains are due"

of course freight trains are timetabled, how do the drivers know when to catch their train.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/CRE/2015/03/17/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt details of all timetabled trains in the uk.inc freight, but not the royal train

Bus drivers are only allowed to stop to pick up and drop off passengers at designated bus stops.

of course freight trains are timetabled

[quote=project ]of course freight trains are timetabled, how do the drivers know when to catch their train.
> http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/CRE/2015/03/17/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt details of all timetabled trains in the uk.inc freight, but not the royal train

So how is it that on some days the Tesco train to Inverness comes by at 9:00 and some days at 9:30? Could it perhaps be because freight trains are frequently subject to schedule changes to accommodate issues with passenger trains?

And then what happens when there are additional trains put on; work parties, snow ploughs etc?

what happens when there are additional trains put on

Well obviously keep an eye out for trains when retrieving personal items - it's just commonsense.
No one died here :

It's fine. Until it's not.

Yep it's all gawn maaad

Though the number of people I see doing stupid things tells me it's not actually gone far enough. Part of the problem is people start to feel H&S is something that is done for them, the old poster with a mirror saying the person responsible for safety is looking at you was good, It reminded people that they were part of the solution.

People need to be understand and be part of the process, but some people just don't get it and need to be told to wear high vis & gloves at all times as to let them rely on their judgement would be negligent.

No one died here

😯

Kinell! Good job he had his Hi-Vis on.

strange how health and safety doesnt seem to cover or have an intrest in company vehicle drivers, training, safety etc, same with lgv drivers,and trucks.

Yeah, 'Elf & Safety has gawn mad I tell ya!

Try telling the latest contractor to clip his safety harness on to an anchor point so you don't have to be the one who will scraping him up after he falls from the scaffolding he's perched on. Just like the one who hit the ground right in front of me from 40m up, because it was too much effort to work safely.

6 years ago, like it was yesterday when I see idiots on scaffolds or hanging off ladders.

The driving lobby ensured that they were outside the remit of H&S law that's why.

If (geological) history has taught us anything, it is that evolution through adaptation and survival of the fittest is a good thing. Any thing that panders to the weakest/dumbest in a society, thus ensuring they have a higher chance of survival and ultimately reproducing must surely be a BAD thing. Maybe, for the sake of the survival of our species we need to do away with ALL H&S and Risk Assessments and Benefits and all that guff...

(tongue firmly in cheek)

I think the Health & Safety industry suffered early-on because of how the officer roles were positioned/who they appealed to. I have see lots of "security-guard syndrome" present in HSOs, which I think is responsible for this caricature that we now have - that may no longer be true.

Mrs Batfink works at a large University, and a big bit of exterior wooden cladding (about the size of a ping-pong table) fell-off from the 3rd floor and landed on a walkway. Nobody was hurt, but Mrs BF let facilities and the H&S office know. The next day, a 6ft temporary steel "safety fence" was erected around the whole building, with wooden tunnels built to protect the student's as they entered/exited. That afternoon, a 50ft section of the safety fence blew over onto a passing law professor, who had to be taken to hospital and is now suing.

The driving lobby ensured that they were outside the remit of H&S law that's why.

Unfortunately in Batfinks example the 2 events though linked are not cause and effect. Not erecting a fence properly has nothing to do with making sure the rest of the building cladding is properly secured. Not doing it and just assuming that the one bit of cladding was faulty is negligent and not right. Protecting people till you check is the right way to go about it.

I went to a demolition site to speak with the site manager once. The job had been done and all that was left was rubble covered flat ground. All staff bar the manager had left for the day, so no machinery running. He tried to insist that I needed to wear a hard hat to walk between the gate and the site office. I declined.

I did hear once that the most common item to fall from height on construction sites are hard hats. Delicious irony...

Sandwich - Member
strange how health and safety doesnt seem to cover or have an intrest in company vehicle drivers, training, safety etc, same with lgv drivers,and trucks.

The driving lobby ensured that they were outside the remit of H&S law that's why.

ernie_lynch - Member
No one died here :

😯 😯 😯

SOL* Twice...

Difficult to see how it could have been any closer.

*Swore Out Loud

On the subject of hi-viz vests, since when did they become regular casual wear for a certain segment of society?

Blame the trend setters

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Station staff wont have access to sufficiently robustly engineered information system, or be able to setup a safe way of working (there wont be enough 'spare' staff to setup lookouts etc). It seems daft, but is it worth the risk to go and get little timmys hat? 😉

Hence the 'call control', mantra.

Unfortunately in Batfink's example the 2 events though linked are not cause and effect

Sorry, weren't really intended to be - just an amusing story. Mrs BF had to escalate this hugely to get them to do anything at all was bad enough - the fact that the mitigation then injured more people that the original H&S issue is, well, "in-line with the performance that she has come to expect from her H&S team".

Incidently, whilst all that was ongoing, the H&S officer booked a meeting with Mrs BF because there was an unresolved 4 year old incident in the risk management tracking system.

The incident? Mrs BFs predecessor had reported a papercut. The irony was that the papercut was reported to demonstrate the officiousness of the system. So here they were, in a meeting discussing what box has to be ticked in a computer for a 4 year old papercut, whilst bits of the building are falling off, and safety fences are falling over and squashing elderly professors.

I'm not sure I really have a point..... maybe it's that the good work done by H&S teams in general is tarnished by some of the jobsworths that the role seems to attract ("never mind that falling masonry, what about this 4 year old papercut!").

So making it really easy to spot the humans in a work placement with vehicles and moving machinery is a bad thing?

He tried to insist that I needed to wear a hard hat to walk between the gate and the site office. I declined.

[quote=sharkattack ]In my local Job Centre all of the desk bound staff have hi-viz vests on the back of their chairs. This is because the car park, directly outside the building, is shared with the general public. Apparently it's a disciplinary offence to walk from the building to your car without your vest on.

Sounds like they did a proper risk assessment - as mentioned above a few times, stuff involving vehicles tends to get ignored, when it's actually some of the most dangerous things people do. There's certainly a quantifiable risk to crossing a car park on foot, one which is likely to be reduced by wearing hi-viz.

Also a former H&S rep, though mostly for office based stuff rather than construction. Though I have filled out risk assessments for going on trials, including working on very big ships (the biggest the RN owns) and very big planes (the biggest the RAF owns) - I always made sure that any risk assessment I wrote or audited for off-site trials mentioned driving. Thankfully we had a culture where it was frowned upon to drive tired - that being probably the most dangerous thing a lot of people do in the course of their job.

but not the royal train

I love the idea that you aren't allowed on the railway track without checking with the control centre in case you get hit by the Royal Train.

🙂

Most people seem to get hit by things they didn't think we're there. So with the 2 options of checking or memorising all the trains and any updates I know which I would do.

I work for a tier2 COMAH site company, we basically have 100tons of highly toxic liquid on site and have a large college next door and are on the outskirts of a large town.

We had an accident in our German plant which evacuated the whole town and cost us millions.

I worked in the same industry abroad and in developing countries and was often appalled at their lack of H&S.

I think the level of H&S is right in this country and I feel good in the knowledge its there to make sure I get home in one piece.

I've currently got me feet up in the sun on the northerly tip of New Zealand..

H&S seems to be be based much more on common sense here.. which is bloody lovely

A particular favourite of note in the last couple of weeks has been the minimalist approach of a simple 'look out for trains' sign when a busy A-road crosses railway lines 🙂

There honestly doesn't seem to be a huge influx of injured folk at the minor injuries department (other half works at the hospital).. I really can't understand it

I know someone who used to do h&s for a construction company who did the motorways. They needed more first aiders so worked out who was always on site. They soon recognised that the tipper truck drivers were so had them all basic training; typical hazards, basic first aid and the like.
Anyway, a few weeks later a surveyor was checking aggregate quantities which involves simply walking round the big piles of gravel and measuring the circumference. As he was doing this he got a stone in his welly so went over to the fence by the side to shake it out.

As he's doing so, a tipper truck came past and saw this bloke so stopped, jumped out, picked his shovel up and with an almighty swing, smashed him to the ground, breaking his arm and two ribs in the process.

When they were investigating why, he told them he'd seen the surveyor "being electrocuted at the side of the road" and so he'd used his hse training to save him.

It was a wooden fence.

[i]a well known trade supplier, the staff are not allowed to carry anything from the shelf to the customer service counter, it must go in wheeled trolleys, rubber washers or car jacks must all be transported not carryed[/i]

Thats not health and safety, thats over zealous company policy.

At work we had problems with a building being vandalised so they installed security fencing and a 5 foot pedestrian gate around the entrance. The locked gate is on the top step of a flight of stairs and is the only access to carry bulky items inside.

Just to complicate the process of balancing tool boxes on the top step whilst wrestling with the gate, they've fitted a very strong closing mechanism on it, and to prevent it being broken the gate will only open about a third of the way before hitting a big spiky bit of metal thats been bolted to the floor as a door stop.

When you leave, the gate pushes you off the top step. I was trying to find out if it met building regs but it doesn't seem that specific about landings at the top of external steps, though obviously you couldn't have a solid door right on the edge...

Sounds like they did a proper risk assessment - as mentioned above a few times, stuff involving vehicles tends to get ignored, when it's actually some of the most dangerous things people do. There's certainly a quantifiable risk to crossing a car park on foot, one which is likely to be reduced by wearing hi-viz.

I wonder how many times the job centre staff have to cross the car park to get to and from their vehicles in a working day? There is a quantifiable risk to crossing a car park on foot which of course is more significant the greater the number of times you cross it, hence hi-viz for parking attendants, trolly collectors and those car wash people in sainsburys. If the total amount of times you cross the car park per day is the same as that for the public who use the job centre (ie when you get there and when you get home again) then i would argue that there should be some serious consideration of the risk with the design of the car park or the behaviour of drivers in it. Is there a 'standard' for what constitutes enough visits to and from your car in a working day to put you at significantly greater risk then the public also using it?

Of course appropriate H & S consideration is v important. What gets on my goat is the amount of paperwork that Clients / Project Managers / CDM Coordinators, etc. will request of an obviously experienced company (usually who they have worked with numerous times before) to 'cover their own arses' when undertaking projects. And ultimately all that paperwork is usually aking the same question numerous times, ie. 'Are you and your staff competent ?

Without checking competency they can become liable should something happen.
"Your employed this company to do this job. A guy got killed. What steps did you take to ensure that wouldn't happen? Did you check they were capable of carrying out the work safely? Where's the paperwork proving this?"
"I always used them and didn't have to ask"
Wrong answer. Not working in compliance with CDM. Possible corporate manslaughter charge.
Yes it's arse covering but if it saves lives and kees your arse out of jail what's not to like?

Ernie - that clip is like something out of a video game. 😯

Hopefully he got to fight his boss shortly afterwards.

Sounds like they did a proper risk assessment - as mentioned above a few times, stuff involving vehicles tends to get ignored, when it's actually some of the most dangerous things people do. There's certainly a quantifiable risk to crossing a car park on foot, one which is likely to be reduced by wearing hi-viz.

Presumably lots of office based stuff has a quantifiable risk attached to it, and simple measures available to reduce it - paper clips instead of staplers, no hot drinks, flat shoes only, no objects left on floor, taking the lift downwards instead of the stairs.

This is more about the threshold of risk rather than the fact that there is a risk.

As he's doing so, a tipper truck came past and saw this bloke so stopped, jumped out, picked his shovel up and with an almighty swing, smashed him to the ground, breaking his arm and two ribs in the process.

When they were investigating why, he told them he'd seen the surveyor "being electrocuted at the side of the road" and so he'd used his hse training to save him.

It was a wooden fence.

[url= http://darwinawards.com/legends/legends2000-02.html ]Urban Myth Thang[/url] ^^

I'm an EHS manager and debated whether to reply to this..

Health and Safety is designed to protect the health of the worker (mesothelioma anyone? no? how about a nice bit of noise induced hearing loss?) and safety (who fancies a nice big fall from an unprotected edge? I mean, having to clip on that pesky harness is such a waste of time!)

Properly managed, through sensible assessment, it won't stop work, nor will it require safety kit to make a cup of tea.

PPE is a last resort and should only issued to people assuming the hazards posed by a process can't be controlled in another way such as engineering a problem out, isolating it through guarding or minimising exposure duration.

I hate this thought that other countries don't have the same rules as us.. the American OSHA system is harsh in some ways and lax in others, they don't want guarding as long as the operators has to hold two buttons down to operate the machinery, fine until something is ejected and strikes them in the face (as happened with a plant in our company last year). Just because Thai workers balance on top of a building with no safety kit, it doesn't mean they are not utterly terrified, they do it because no one is stopping the companies from making it safer. If they refuse to do the work, they'll lose their job and won't be able to feed their families.

What a lot of people have been talking about is the lack of awareness shown by individuals, a lack of understanding, or the sheer terror of having a civil claim against them.

The older style of safety legislation was prescriptive, pre Health and Safety at Work Act, the factory inspectors would tell you what to do to make things safer, now it's the responsibility of the employer to do this.

The thing is, I do what I do because I don't to ever have to phone up the wife of a colleague and explain that he's currently in hospital again.

If the people who have quoted 'elf n safety' rules actually stopped reading the daily mail and found out a little bit more about the real story, they may realise it's not as bad as they've been led to believe.

I saw this guy speak last year, he thought the wearing of safety glasses was too much trouble, until an violent exothermic reaction caused the substance to explode in his face, when he told the audience how he had to have his eyes removed due to the injuries he sustained puts 'Elf n Safety' in perspective somewhat.. now he campaigns to make industry safer

Just my thoughts

Ian

The best health and safety video ever. Yes it's in German but I've seen it used on many British construction sites. Lets say it's quite visual. A great way to use humor to bring health and safety to your attention.

I love the idea that you aren't allowed on the railway track without checking with the control centre in case you get hit by the Royal Train.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that not every member of station staff is checking the WTT to ensure no freights are due either, and a quick glance at the information screens probably isn't enough to ensure it's clear!

That said... I wonder if the royal train has ever hit someone, collecting a lost phone or otherwise.

Going back to driving...
If a construction firm's heavy machinery crushes a worker or member of the public on a building site there will be a HSE investigation and possibly corporate manslaughter prosecutions.

If the same thing happens 10 yards away, in the road, the driver might get a £100 fine. More likely than not, he will be able to say "I can't operate this equipment safely, so I crushed someone that I couldn't see" and that will be an excuse rather than an admission of failure/guilt.

A particular favourite of note in the last couple of weeks has been the minimalist approach of a simple 'look out for trains' sign when a busy A-road crosses railway lines

There honestly doesn't seem to be a huge influx of injured folk at the minor injuries department (other half works at the hospital).. I really can't understand it

If you're hit by a train, you've probably bypassed 'minor injuries' and gone straight to 'morgue'.

I can understand it.

The US also has your minimalist approach to many rail crossings. 14 people a week are killed by trains. Don't know what that proves, other than trains kill people.

Rail staff at stations are not allowed onto the tracks to retriev personal items of passengers even when they know no trains are due.They must contact control and ask for permision, then awit permision to be granted.

Seems perfectly sensible to me.

National Grid are the absolute worst. For exmaple

on site you must wear all PPE at all times. So if you're inspecting a frame and cover in the footway that means flame retardant overalls helmet, glasses, gloves hi viz, boots. Admittedly that's just maily a PITA but it does lead to 'i've got my PPE on therefore I'm safe' type problens

With the Electricity DNO's a close second. They each have a different set of Electriacal Saftety rules including different coloured cones, helmets, barriers tape, with all meaning something different depending on which DNO youre working on. This is actually truly frickin dangerous, especially considering a lot of the linesmen etc are from Jordan or Romania where despite voltages and eset up being the sma as the uk they have the old National Grid colour coding which is different gain to that pn the DNO's and current national grid standards. Madness.

But if you really wnat to get excited about it I suggest you go and work in Qatar with the Philipinos and ****stanis that are dying in their droves to build football stadiums cos nobody over there gives a shit.

"I can't operate this equipment safely, so I crushed someone that I couldn't see"

But if you really wnat to get excited about it I suggest you go and work in Qatar with the Philipinos and ****stanis that are dying in their droves to build football stadiums cos nobody over there gives a shit.

But at least they're getting things done 😉

[quote=BigButSlimmerBloke ] "I can't operate this equipment safely, so I crushed someone that I couldn't see"
Don't you need some kind of licence to operate equipment on the public highway? Or is that more elf and sayftee gorn mad?

You do, but there's no ongoing training and if you're proven to be incompetent you still keep your operating licence and can carry on operating dangerous equipment.

...and (bus) passengers from jumping in front of passing vehicles.