Jump to content


Photo

A rare bit of common sense in our 'ealth-n-safety-gone-mad world


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Perruqueporte

Perruqueporte
  • Member

  • 38 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 17 July 2014 - 09:24

Not really off topic - it's to do with the trailer I have bought to transport a car.

 

Yesterday I was told that bicycles may no longer be used by Royal Mail employees, because they are too dangerous, and that postmen & women are instructed not to lift anything above shoulder height "in case they hurt themselves".  All of which is depressingly illustrative of a growing malaise.

 

I was relieved this morning when looking at the manual for my new (Brian James) trailer to read: "When loading a trailer it is absolutely vital that a POSITIVE nose weight is achieved. Loading cars of front engined design means that the car should be driven forwards onto the trailer until the tow vehicles suspension just starts to settle. (Rear engined cars must be reversed up onto the trailer).  Apply the same logic for machinery and equipment.

 

It's that last sentence - "Apply the same logic….." - which cheers me up.  Someone at Brian James Trailers trusts us to have minds of our own.

 

Christopher W.

 

 



Advertisement

#2 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 924 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 17 July 2014 - 13:08

It seems that the Royal Mail took the advice offered by Top Gear a few years ago. They were asked to produce a video to promote bicycle safety. Clarkson's approach was to show how dangerous they were so people would stop riding them. The ultimate in bicycle safety!



#3 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 July 2014 - 15:27

Over at Motor Sport magazine, Mat Oxley has a sensible piece about racing safety:

http://www.motorspor...er-be-too-safe/

 

Mat questions whether safety provisions make the track safer for racers. 

 

***

 

Your typical Daily Mail 'elf'n'safety article doesn't sincerely argue about safety; the story can always be disintegrated, as to whether somebody's actions annoyed or inconvenienced somebody else.  'elf'n'safety is the excuse for a bossy person to have a go at somebody who is different or contrary. It is just an excuse to ban something which is inconvenient. 'elf'n'safety has become an easy excuse.

 

***

 

Health and Safety considerations at work are brilliant. Just as we don't want racers to die, workers should be safe when they operate the machines for racers. 

 

Somebody smart needs to explain how there is a difference between Health and Safety and 'elf'n'safety.



#4 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,113 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 17 July 2014 - 22:15

Circuit "Safety Provisions" can have one of two objectives - Safety of the competitors or Safety of non-competitors (spectators and occasionally marshalls or pit personnel).  Generally the two run hand in hand, but I am sure there are some circumstances where reducing one risk means increasing the other.  This is the reason that people nowadays carry out formal risk assesments.

 

The "elf 'n safety" decisions that infuriate us are generally taken by people who don't fully understand the formal "Risk Assessment" process and apply risk mitigation measures indiscriminately.  To try and avoid this issue the Construction safety law includes the term "Where reasonably practicable" but even then, some people, and organisations, are overly conservative.



#5 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,141 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 July 2014 - 23:57

Circuit "Safety Provisions" can have one of two objectives - Safety of the competitors or Safety of non-competitors (spectators and occasionally marshalls or pit personnel).  Generally the two run hand in hand, but I am sure there are some circumstances where reducing one risk means increasing the other.  This is the reason that people nowadays carry out formal risk assesments.

 

The "elf 'n safety" decisions that infuriate us are generally taken by people who don't fully understand the formal "Risk Assessment" process and apply risk mitigation measures indiscriminately.  To try and avoid this issue the Construction safety law includes the term "Where reasonably practicable" but even then, some people, and organisations, are overly conservative.

Believe me Track Inspectors get it wrong often. Often the dynamics of racing is NOT taken into acount. Nor is commonsense for flag locations, from a vision perspective and sometimes the flag point is vulnerable to be hit.

'Temporary' circuits are worse too as the circuit has to go around eg a tree which makes the wall stick out to be hit or most flaggies are more vulnerable as they waving through a gap in the catch fencing behind a big concrete block they is NOT secured in place, just relying on its own weight. They can and do move quite a way when hit.

Worse what is great for bikes is not so good for cars, air fencing. I have seen a FF bury itself under it and the driver could not get out. That was ok as the car did not catch fire. Kerbs that may be ok for cars can launch a bike big time. Though many kerbs can do that too a car, some are as high as 500mm. Worse at one satge many were corrougated on top. The idea is to keep the cars down, ok it does unless you are avoiding a spinning car,, or just having your own private accident. I damaged a fuel tank on one of those and many damaged exhausts. But hit them wrong [with or without corrougations] and they will launch you in the air and possibly into a wall. 

Smooth walls are safer to hit at less than 45 deg angle as you bounce off, tyres or earth walls tear the car to bits as they GRAB. Sometimes better though for bikes. Head on tyres are the best, better than air fence except again for bikes.

Really a circuit that is safe for bikes can be lousy for cars, even open wheel or really low sports cars require different dynamics than a tintop or large sporty.

With a deal of work you can change the worst of it for bikes or for cars, a 2x4 meeting [and I wish there were more] will always be a severe compromise. But open wheelers and tintops are generally always on the same bill.



#6 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 July 2014 - 15:24

The "elf 'n safety" decisions that infuriate us are generally taken by people who don't fully understand the formal "Risk Assessment" process and apply risk mitigation measures indiscriminately.

I think there are distinctions.

 

Health and Safety considerations protect people at work.

 

'elf'n'safety, acknowledging your definition, permits administrators who do not understand risk to create mistaken rules.

 

'elf'n'safety, by another defintion, provides administrators a convenient excuse to prohibit inconvenient  behaviour.



#7 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,113 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 18 July 2014 - 17:10

Agreed.  And then there's [mis]using 'elf 'n safety because of an [unjustified] fear of litigation.  I know of one public body that has produced an almost impenetrable wall of treacle and silly rules to protect them from the perceived risk of being held accountable for the actions of contractors and being sued. 



#8 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 18 July 2014 - 19:47

Believe it or not, at a school where I visit to teach once a week, a long standing employee (the incumbent caretaker) was berated by a new management regime for climbing a ladder without having been on a one-hour course...seriously! This guy had been the job for 26 years. 'Elf'n'safety and a complete lack of common sense from someone charged with teaching the next generation... Needless to say said employee decided it was time to retire.

 

Wonder what the regime would make of a typical race track then :drunk:



#9 Siddley

Siddley
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 18 July 2014 - 20:14

Believe it or not...

 

Oh I believe it. Before we emigrated my wife worked as a technician at a state comp and she had to take the very course you mention.
Ironic considering her hobbies outside work were riding insane ex-racehorses, fast motorcycles and full contact kick boxing...
She used passive resistance and feigned stupidity to make the course as trying as possible for the apparatchik conducting it. Eventually he gave up, said " just sign this form to say you have completed the course' and stomped off in a bad mood :lol:



#10 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 18 July 2014 - 20:48

How long will it take for 'everything' to gring to a halt ????

 

It seems that [in the confused minds of some] the only sure way to 'not make a mistake', is to do nothing.



#11 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 237 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 July 2014 - 21:03

This is the modern world.

 

Until I threw the towel in a couple of years ago my job periodically involved going on roofs. After 40 years of doing so safely I was told I could no longer do so until I returned to the UK to take a "working at heights course". This was one of the 12 reasons I found that told me I had had enough of madness......  I am now enjoying life fully.



#12 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 18 July 2014 - 21:27

Over at Motor Sport magazine, Mat Oxley has a sensible piece about racing safety:

http://www.motorspor...er-be-too-safe/

 

Mat questions whether safety provisions make the track safer for racers. 

 

***

 

Your typical Daily Mail 'elf'n'safety article doesn't sincerely argue about safety; the story can always be disintegrated, as to whether somebody's actions annoyed or inconvenienced somebody else.  'elf'n'safety is the excuse for a bossy person to have a go at somebody who is different or contrary. It is just an excuse to ban something which is inconvenient. 'elf'n'safety has become an easy excuse.

 

***

 

Health and Safety considerations at work are brilliant. Just as we don't want racers to die, workers should be safe when they operate the machines for racers. 

 

Somebody smart needs to explain how there is a difference between Health and Safety and 'elf'n'safety.

Absolutely, and thank god someone has made this poit early on!

 

 I work in Health & safety (formerly for HSE as a construction inspector) and often i'd arrive to face strong objections based solely on perceptions of H&S rather than the fact, and leave on good terms - often having stopped work, but having explained what was wrong & why it needed to change.

 

Britain has a fantastic H&S regime, copied across the world, but sadly the name has been hyjacked by those wishing to justify making unpopular decisions or more often, to avoid admitting that it is insurance costs drivig decisions.

 

There are very few things 'banned' by H&S in the UK - work with asbestos or certain toxic chemicals without a lisence being the main examples. ANYTHING esle IS possible if you plan accordingly and take the appropriate actions to mitigate the risk.

 

and I am now the H&S officer in an art college - (now that's a fun challenge! :-)  and with regards to the ladder point above, acknowledging that many of our students may not be used ot working high up  stepladders to hang work, here's what I did - attach a photo of a belly button (yup!)  to the top step and arrows to the stiles and the level of the top step and the simple instruction to keep your belly button between these parameters. Simple, but it engages their attention and gets the right message across! (and remember, I used to enforce the law, so am happy I know a fair bit about what I'd expect by way of compliance )

 

Al


Edited by Mistron, 18 July 2014 - 21:33.


#13 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 18 July 2014 - 21:42

Believe it or not, at a school where I visit to teach once a week, a long standing employee (the incumbent caretaker) was berated by a new management regime for climbing a ladder without having been on a one-hour course...seriously! This guy had been the job for 26 years. 'Elf'n'safety and a complete lack of common sense from someone charged with teaching the next generation... Needless to say said employee decided it was time to retire.

 

Wonder what the regime would make of a typical race track then :drunk:

 

Believe it or not, at a school where I visit to teach once a week, a long standing employee (the incumbent caretaker) was berated by a new management regime for climbing a ladder without having been on a one-hour course...seriously! This guy had been the job for 26 years. 'Elf'n'safety and a complete lack of common sense from someone charged with teaching the next generation... Needless to say said employee decided it was time to retire.

 

Wonder what the regime would make of a typical race track then :drunk:

If by 'the regime' you mean HSE as regulator:

 

http://www.hse.gov.u...ooks/hsg112.htm

 

However, most events are of course run to the MSA guidance.

 

I have previously made the point that I believe Motorsport (in the UK at least) has a very robust H&S management system, which of course needs to be reviewed in light of incidents and events. I will be interested to see the outcome of the recent comments regardign HANS and whether the MSA 'enforce' their wider use.

 

Al



#14 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 18 July 2014 - 22:00

I meant the new management at the said educational establishment



#15 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,803 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:44

Yesterday I was told that bicycles may no longer be used by Royal Mail employees, because they are too dangerous

 

In Woking, Surrey they are still happily using their red Royal Mail liveried bikes.  Maybe they have decided to desist in London or other big cities, where frankly you must be suicidal to ride a bike.



#16 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,915 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 July 2014 - 11:58

It seems that the Royal Mail took the advice offered by Top Gear a few years ago. They were asked to produce a video to promote bicycle safety. Clarkson's approach was to show how dangerous they were so people would stop riding them.

Once again proving what a disgusting clown he is.



#17 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,690 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:04

If you take Clarkson seriously you mostly have yourself to blame.



#18 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:26

In reviewing one car's safety he said that, because it had a better pedestrian NCAP rating than driver rating, in the event of an imminent crash the best course of action was to jump out of the car and throw yourself infront of it.

#19 Perruqueporte

Perruqueporte
  • Member

  • 38 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 24 July 2014 - 15:56

In Woking, Surrey they are still happily using their red Royal Mail liveried bikes.  Maybe they have decided to desist in London or other big cities, where frankly you must be suicidal to ride a bike.

We're only a few miles south of you, near Haslemere.  We've obviously gone soft around here!

 

Christopher W.



Advertisement

#20 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,803 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 24 July 2014 - 19:57

We're only a few miles south of you, near Haslemere.  We've obviously gone soft around here!

 

Christopher W.

Lot of hills around Haslemere though, which may have something to do with it?  To paraphrase Noel Coward "Very flat, Woking"



#21 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,915 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 July 2014 - 22:26

If you take Clarkson seriously you mostly have yourself to blame.

That's why I called him a clown   ;)

 

The problem is that some people take any of his farts as gospel. But indeed, the real problem is not Jeremy but those cheaply satisfied goons.



#22 king_crud

king_crud
  • Member

  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 July 2014 - 15:08

In Woking, Surrey they are still happily using their red Royal Mail liveried bikes.  Maybe they have decided to desist in London or other big cities, where frankly you must be suicidal to ride a bike.

 

I find London fairly easy to cycle around, drivers are considerate (quiet back there) and because traffic flows so slowly you don't have too many chances to get hit by boy races flying around blind bends into you



#23 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,088 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 25 July 2014 - 16:28

If you take Clarkson seriously you mostly have yourself to blame.

:up:

I love watching Top Gear for the laugh. It is almost like Monty Python's or the three Stooges, just with cars. People that take this stuff serious should be locked away. Same thing counts for those 'elth-n-safty nazis...they should also be locked away.



#24 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 25 July 2014 - 18:18

At least the Nazis could spell.......

 

And H&S is generally seen as more of a 'left wing' argument, so perhaps you mean 'elth & Safety Communists'?

 

Comrade Al. :-)


Edited by Mistron, 25 July 2014 - 18:24.


#25 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 7,122 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2014 - 00:26

:up:
Same thing counts for those 'elth-n-safty nazis...they should also be locked away.

I agree, but first I would like to start with a Risk Assessment.

Points to consider would be:

- the impact on the individuals health and well being
- the safest way to achieve said locking away
- an appropriate location for said locking away, including the impact on the local populace, flora and fauna and real estate prices!
- the financial overhead for said locking away, including start-up costs, ongoing costs and eventually, disposal costs
- signage considerations
- a hazard assessment and remediation for said locking away facility
- a multi-agency and well funded program to avoid said locking away actions in the future

[I could go on...but you get the idea! :rolleyes: ]

#26 DanTra2858

DanTra2858
  • Member

  • 636 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 26 July 2014 - 05:19

OMG Mick are you trying to make a point? lol

#27 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:24

Before you have a go at H&S:

 

Have you ever interviewed an injured person following a workplace accident? Someone who may never work again

 

Have you ever taken a statement from a guy who witnessed his pal's death?

 

Have you ever seen the aftermath of  an industrial accident? (it can be messy)

 

Have you ever spoken to the family of someone who went to work in the mornig, but didn't come back?

 

We can all make lists........

 

I've done all the above many times, so perhaps my view is based more in reality than tin the Daily Mail.

 

Al


Edited by Mistron, 26 July 2014 - 08:24.


#28 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 7,122 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:51

Before you have a go at H&S:
 
Have you ever interviewed an injured person following a workplace accident? Someone who may never work again
 
Have you ever taken a statement from a guy who witnessed his pal's death?
 
Have you ever seen the aftermath of  an industrial accident? (it can be messy)
 
Have you ever spoken to the family of someone who went to work in the mornig, but didn't come back?
 
We can all make lists........
 
I've done all the above many times, so perhaps my view is based more in reality than tin the Daily Mail.
 
Al


Well done Al, you have highlighted the main reason for H&S, to save lives or avoid taking lives in the first instance...but your humour bypass may be forcing you to overlook the inane lengths some are going to in the name of H&S :rolleyes:



#29 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 July 2014 - 10:27

Ah, but that's people taking the name in vain - nothing to do with H&S legislation (Criminal law, only applicable to work activities) 

 

I do have a sense of humour bypass when people use it as an excuse, and then others use it as a cheap target in ignorance.

 

I do an important job, not a frivoulous one.

 

I'm not even sure why it all became associated with H&S and not the insurance industry? They're the main 'culprits'.

 

Al



#30 LotusElise

LotusElise
  • Member

  • 668 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 27 July 2014 - 09:13

<snip>

I'm not even sure why it all became associated with H&S and not the insurance industry? They're the main 'culprits'.

 

Al

 

This is absolutely true. 

 

In my current industry, the reason for the obsessive training modules, overkill signage and other associated things, is not H&S zeal, it's a craven fear of being sued by customers.

We get several claims a week from people, encouraged by insurance firms and compensation solicitors, for injuries that were blatantly deliberate, or their own fault.



#31 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,803 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 27 July 2014 - 10:23

A friend of mine had a holiday site with various facilities like a pool etc. He became fed up with specious claims for compensation and decided to contest every one in court if necessary. His main opponent was his own insurance company which tried to force him to settle every claim below £1000. He refused and rarely thereafter paid out to anyone unless their case was genuine.

#32 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,088 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 July 2014 - 16:09

Al, I'm not trying to take the piss.

I'm a factoryworker and do understand H&S issues. We have every month one H&S advice about the general risks we face at work.

It's about anything from riding a bicycle over using a ladder to 'dangerous' chemicals.

And it usually takes about ten minutes. That's fine.

Somebody tries to force an employee to take a course about using a ladder, what is part of the job he's been doing there for 20+ years? Seriously?

 

Makes to me as much sense as trying to make an 105 year old stop smoking and drinking because it could kill him...

 

Not long ago somebody tried telling me something about a 'dangerous' substance (not alcohol) in the drink I had and I turned aroud and told him that I don't care because I'll die someday anyway.

 

 

539701_493070417413147_224674613_n.jpg

 

How did Bilbo Baggins say in the Lord of the Rings? Leaving your house is dangerous buisness.



#33 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2014 - 17:46

Remind me not to try any coffee in Canada, if they only serve it cold.

#34 LotusElise

LotusElise
  • Member

  • 668 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 27 July 2014 - 19:52

Working At Height is for those using scaffolding, not ladders.

 

Dad has to do it. They provide a decent free lunch and lots of tea and coffee, so he doesn't mind that much.

 

We have a training video at work which explains the correct way to react when a customer starts on you. This does happen.



#35 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,803 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 28 July 2014 - 09:37

To return to the posties' bikes question, apparently it is to do with efficiency and productivity, not H & S.  On a bike, the postie can carry at most two bags of junk mail and has to return to base to collect more, or use one of those cabinets attached to postboxes, where his mate in a van leaves further bags for him.  Now they are issued with four wheeled carts with battery power assistance with a big red plastic tub in which they can put all their mail for the whole day in one go.  So no time wasted returning for more post, more time spent putting fliers for thermal underwear and letters for people in a different road altogether through my letter box.

 

Not health and safety, but (health and) efficiency then...



#36 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 237 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 July 2014 - 14:40

Working At Height is for those using scaffolding, not ladders.

 

Dad has to do it. They provide a decent free lunch and lots of tea and coffee, so he doesn't mind that much.

 

We have a training video at work which explains the correct way to react when a customer starts on you. This does happen.

I was expected to do it to work on a flat roof surrounded by a 1 metre wall. Roof accessed from within the building via stairs! That is crackers!


Edited by Dipster, 29 July 2014 - 14:42.


#37 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 29 July 2014 - 17:40

Dipster, you are right, that's daft. That's no doubt due to someone who doesn't know (enough about) what they are talking about.

 

Minimum height for edge protection for H&S purposes is 950mm. However, and here's the daft thing, if you build it as a balcony, building control will want it to be 1100mm........... Why this is different, I have never understood? 



#38 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,320 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 31 July 2014 - 00:04

The classic one i heard was on this years Tour de France, the voice of cycling Phill Liggett told a story ,that in Leeds  were the race started some women had knitted some wool covers, to go around the cast iron street lights ,just trying to decorate the place up a bit.Any Health and Safety asked them to be removed. 

 

Their reason was that the wool would shrink and crack the light pole (made of cast iron).......... :stoned:  :stoned:  :stoned:

 

O, what a sad and sorry powder puff world we now live in.



#39 DavidI

DavidI
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 31 July 2014 - 00:43

The real shame is the nonsensical actions done in the name of 'elfnsafety tends to overshadow important and valuable actions involved in real H&S. I have been involved in various places (mechanical engineering/fabrication/manufacturing/mining) with "safety cultures" in force, with varying levels of success, unfortunately all it seems to take is a couple of examples of spurious rules and you get a) cynicism and b) a culture of "watch the unsafe act happen then report it (because the paperwork is most important)" rather than "stop the unsafe act while it's happening/before it escalates."



Advertisement

#40 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,141 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 July 2014 - 09:00

A friend of mine had a holiday site with various facilities like a pool etc. He became fed up with specious claims for compensation and decided to contest every one in court if necessary. His main opponent was his own insurance company which tried to force him to settle every claim below £1000. He refused and rarely thereafter paid out to anyone unless their case was genuine.

Bloody insurance companies are using their own customers as suckers in so many ways. The excess sometimes exceeds the true value of the claim. I have seen that on numerous occasions and fighting such currently.



#41 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,113 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 31 July 2014 - 10:12

Insurance companies stink.  I had someone reverse into me in a supermarket car park.  I reported it to my insurance company so I could claim off the other party.  I was asked about whiplash and I told them I was doing 2 mph so there was no possibility.  I had twenty calls from their associated lawyers encouraging me to make a [specious] whiplash claim, for which they would no doubt receive a percentage or costs and the insurance company a commission.  I also had several calls from their associated car hire company encouraging me to book a replacement car through them.  Although I had a very reasonable quote from a local body shop I ended up getting the dealer to sort it out who fixed the dent, gave me a loan car for two days and no doubt made my insurance company, or the other party's one, pay top whack.    Needless to say when I renewed mypolicy I went elsewhere.

 

They also pay their call centre staff a pittance and give them targets of numbers of claims to settlr.  To meet the target they don't have time to query anything.

 

 

Edit:  I am turning into a grouchy old cantankerous git aren't I?


Edited by D-Type, 31 July 2014 - 10:14.


#42 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 31 July 2014 - 11:33

Likewise, in 2009 my car was written off whilst parked, during a snowstorm. Some poor guy in a van skidded into it at less than 5 mph and crunched a corner, but because of its age it was a write off, even though I drove it back home from London that night.

 

Over the following three years I received phone calls and texting asking me about my whiplash claim... When the accident happened I was ensconced in the armchair of one of my relatives! The thing that irks me is, they must put quite a lot of resource and effort into making these calls, paid for out of our premiums.

 

Back to 'elf and safety; when you work in the theatre, there are many backstage hazards and people are working in almost blackout conditions so H&S applies everywhere (you can't move that piece of scenery until everyone is off stage, etc) - everywhere, that is, EXCEPT the orchestra pit! Bear in mind that reaching one's place in the pit involves climbing over, under and through scaffold braces under the stage, and letting other folk in first because there's no room to climb over them or their instruments. Usually our "fire exit" is a single entrance/exit door under the stage, so I make a point of working out my actual escape route should there be a fire. It usually involves climbing up and over the pit rail into the auditorium and then escaping with the paying hordes through the plentiful fire exits. It's odd but when I mention this to stage managers they tell me it's unsafe to climb out of the pit... 



#43 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 31 July 2014 - 17:48

Edit:  I am turning into a grouchy old cantankerous git aren't I?

Or Normal.



#44 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,141 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 July 2014 - 22:58

Likewise, in 2009 my car was written off whilst parked, during a snowstorm. Some poor guy in a van skidded into it at less than 5 mph and crunched a corner, but because of its age it was a write off, even though I drove it back home from London that night.

 

Over the following three years I received phone calls and texting asking me about my whiplash claim... When the accident happened I was ensconced in the armchair of one of my relatives! The thing that irks me is, they must put quite a lot of resource and effort into making these calls, paid for out of our premiums.

 

Back to 'elf and safety; when you work in the theatre, there are many backstage hazards and people are working in almost blackout conditions so H&S applies everywhere (you can't move that piece of scenery until everyone is off stage, etc) - everywhere, that is, EXCEPT the orchestra pit! Bear in mind that reaching one's place in the pit involves climbing over, under and through scaffold braces under the stage, and letting other folk in first because there's no room to climb over them or their instruments. Usually our "fire exit" is a single entrance/exit door under the stage, so I make a point of working out my actual escape route should there be a fire. It usually involves climbing up and over the pit rail into the auditorium and then escaping with the paying hordes through the plentiful fire exits. It's odd but when I mention this to stage managers they tell me it's unsafe to climb out of the pit... 

That actually surprises me a lot. No tangible proper fire exits. Those sort of rules make 100% sense.  A simple ladder or better stairs into the crowd makes sense. Not maybe for during a concert though, only in emergency!



#45 Mistron

Mistron
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 01 August 2014 - 09:20

Here's a co-incidence. Today I read this in HSE's daily update, and it seems that if I hadn't left, I could have been ideal to be in charge........

 

Maybe Judith Hacket (Head of HSE) reads TNF? Who knows?

 

http://www.hse.gov.u...&cr=29-Jul-2014

 

Oh, and I agree about the orchestra pit - there should be a ladder available to be put in place in the event of an emergency.

There probably once was, but the maintenance bloke will have nicked it to fix something and not brought it back.

 

Al



#46 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 237 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 August 2014 - 13:15

Insurance companies stink.  I had someone reverse into me in a supermarket car park.  I reported it to my insurance company so I could claim off the other party.  I was asked about whiplash and I told them I was doing 2 mph so there was no possibility.  I had twenty calls from their associated lawyers encouraging me to make a [specious] whiplash claim, for which they would no doubt receive a percentage or costs and the insurance company a commission.  I also had several calls from their associated car hire company encouraging me to book a replacement car through them.  Although I had a very reasonable quote from a local body shop I ended up getting the dealer to sort it out who fixed the dent, gave me a loan car for two days and no doubt made my insurance company, or the other party's one, pay top whack.    Needless to say when I renewed mypolicy I went elsewhere.

 

They also pay their call centre staff a pittance and give them targets of numbers of claims to settlr.  To meet the target they don't have time to query anything.

 

 

Edit:  I am turning into a grouchy old cantankerous git aren't I?

I was well on my way.....  The continuous erosion of liberties and commen sense in modern working life led me to be on the way to becoming Victor Meldrew. Happily wy wife alerted me to this - it is insiduous and difficukt to identify in oneself - and I decided to bail out of work before it was too late! Now I am a less well off but more contented person. As is my wife.

 

The brain is odd. I had been talking of conmen earleir and it must have crept bacvk into my mind when I thought of ellfin safety later (commen....). Common. of course, was meant.


Edited by Dipster, 01 August 2014 - 13:22.


#47 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 371 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 01 August 2014 - 13:42

Before you have a go at H&S:

 

Have you ever interviewed an injured person following a workplace accident? Someone who may never work again

 

Have you ever taken a statement from a guy who witnessed his pal's death?

 

Have you ever seen the aftermath of  an industrial accident? (it can be messy)

 

Have you ever spoken to the family of someone who went to work in the mornig, but didn't come back?

 

We can all make lists........

 

I've done all the above many times, so perhaps my view is based more in reality than tin the Daily Mail.

 

Al

With respect, I don't think it's a fair comparison. You've taken examples that are very pertinent and valid for health and safety and applied them to an activity that, in the broad spectrum that life blesses us with, is safe. Zealous health and safety should be opposed because it raises the cost to the taxpayer through legislation, literature and increased insurance/compensation claims.

 

The incidents you describe are not likely to befall a postman on his bicycle. No more likely than anybody commuting or cycling in their leisure. If the same logic were to be consistently applied, bicycles would be banned. There is a very broad and sensible middle ground between having no health and safety and telling people not to use their bicycle for work. You wrote in another post about asbestos and of course it was right to ban that. Naturally, the media jump around on the minority of stupid decisions that consequently overshadow the need for precautions. If the type of actions such as instructing postal workers from using bicycles was curtailed, perhaps you would have an easier job convincing people from the beginning, eveni f you do generally leave on good terms.


Edited by hittheapex, 01 August 2014 - 13:42.


#48 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,803 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 01 August 2014 - 16:03

I do recommend all to look at this link and especially to look at the mythical cases that are recorded, which very very clearly bear out the difference between real H & S matters and the use of the term by idle jobsworths and ideologues to cover their a**ses or to justify some new piece of petty regulation or bureaucracy.

 

The European Commission suffers from similar myths and you might be entertained to read some of those.  Fair play, but it won't stop me and ol' Nige from trying to get us out of the EU!



#49 onelung

onelung
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 02 August 2014 - 01:40

Bugger elfn'safety ... bring back city-to-city racing and the genuine Mille Miglia, that's wot I reckon... the surviving spectators loved it all.



#50 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,729 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 03 August 2014 - 10:50

BRG, on 28 Jul 2014 - 11:37, said:

To return to the posties' bikes question, apparently it is to do with efficiency and productivity, not H & S.  On a bike, the postie can carry at most two bags of junk mail and has to return to base to collect more, or use one of those cabinets attached to postboxes, where his mate in a van leaves further bags for him.  Now they are issued with four wheeled carts with battery power assistance with a big red plastic tub in which they can put all their mail for the whole day in one go.  So no time wasted returning for more post, more time spent putting fliers for thermal underwear and letters for people in a different road altogether through my letter box.

 

Not health and safety, but (health and) efficiency then...

 

Sold under a plain cover