To say, or not to say, that is the question

[SimonH2]

Safety is about thinking before you take a risk, like leaning too far off a ladder.

Fundamentally yes.
The trouble is that there are so many aggravating factors that prevent that being a reasonable practice to use as your H&S policy. It's my personal approach which comes before consideration of what policies apply to the job/site/whatever - ie, my thought process goes "if I do X, what could happen, and if one of those happens, will it hurt".

But, the statistics prove that taking a wide generalisation, a large number of people exhibit one or more issues that make such a policy untenable :
1) They have a poor grasp of risk
2) They are too "macho" - particularly younger ones who've not yet learned (perhaps the hard way) that they aren't indestructible
3) They are too complacent - e.g. they've been walking around on roofs for years and because they've not personally seen someone fall, or known someone who has, off then the risks must be overstated.
4) They are "under duress". For those who suggest that employees have made a choice to expose themselves to risk - well that only goes so far. If you have a need to pay the bills and so on, then having a job is not really optional. Unless you've already got another job to go to, then p***ing off your current boss by refusing isn't a smart move. Yes, it's been shown time and time again that employers will cut corners in the pursuit of profit - eg by sending people onto a roof without any safety gear. The endless stream of prosecutions for H&S failing demonstrates that - you can't put them all, or probably even a large proportion down to "differences of opinion" as to where the line should be drawn. Of course, bosses aren't immune to (3) above !
5) They are just too lazy. I've personally seen someone stand on a (wobbly) pallet on a forklift because the man-cage they had available was at the other end of the warehouse and full of junk. Fortunately the guy didn't fall off, though I really don't know how and I consider it a point of personal shame that I didn't speak out there and then.

The flip side is, as pointed out, that many people apply H&S "because it's the rules" with no thought really as to what the purpose is. To the "H&S causes a risk" category I'll add when wearing a hard hat is responsible for neck injury. I've been in situation where I've had to wear a hard hat - f**k knows why as there was nothing but the roof above me - but the extra height causes me to catch my "head" on things I wouldn't done without it, thus causing a slight "neck twinge".

So anyone suggesting "elf-n-safety" is often over-applied - yes I agree, and that's half the problem. I can think of a couple of situations where (as long as I knew in advance) I'd print out a RIDDOR form and have it with me - as in "you want me to wear/do what ? Lets sit down and fill this form in then". Fortunately (for all concerned) I very rarely get sent to places with a "wear X, Y, and Z or p**s off" approach. Those who know me will be aware that I can be "somewhat outspoken" at times

 

[SimonH2]

We were doing a solar panel installation in Oundle sometime in 2009 using safety harnesses and fall arresters when a motor pulls up and a young chap gets out and shouts up to us "Those harnesses you are using will kill you within minutes if you fall" Wtf?
...
Those harnesses were thrown in the van and have not seen the late of day since.

Which means you had not been trained properly in how to use them - so your employer didn't actually consider H&S properly, he simply took the "here is a risk, this is what others do with it" approach without the needed understanding. And the risk needn't be great if you are not working alone - the idea being that the harness etc stops you going splat on the concrete, and your mates (or the fire brigade ?) get you down before the harness kills you.
I had a quick look for some references - this one explains it very well, including the pros and cons of the different attachment arrangements. There's also the obligatory Wikipedia reference.

I also came across this one which is more practically minded.
On page 13 it has this :

• 1926.502(d)(20): “The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or assure that employees are able to rescue themselves.”
  • The time of an incident is not the time to figure out how to promptly rescue a person in a fall. Prior training and practice will ensure that individuals are prepared to address the needs of someone who has fallen.
• 1926.503(a): “The employer shall provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards.”
  • The program shall enable the employee to recognize the hazards of falling and shall train each employee in the procedures, the use, inspection and maintenance of the fall protection system to be used.

In other words, it's no good just slinging some gear at the workers and expecting them to know how to use it. And it's also no good giving them fall arrest systems (even if they know how to use it) if no-one had thought of how to get someone down it it gets used. Given the risks of hanging in a harness (especially the "suspension from back of chest" types commonly used in industry), that second bit is rather more important than people think.

And for good measure, I found this Youtube video on one rescue technique. Notice how the harnesses they are using are more like chairs, and allow the rescuee to sit in a recumbent position - specifically mentioned in the first reference above as being one way to avoid or significantly slow the effects of being suspended.

One other thing. I hurt my back while carrying a panel from a barn to a mounting system when it got caught by a gust of wind. So your point about being up on a wet roof with them is a valid one.

Indeed.

 

[ajrtd]

We were doing a solar panel installation in Oundle sometime in 2009 using safety harnesses and fall arresters when a motor pulls up and a young chap gets out and shouts up to us "Those harnesses you are using will kill you within minutes if you fall" Wtf?
...
Those harnesses were thrown in the van and have not seen the late of day since.

Which means you had not been trained properly in how to use them - so your employer didn't actually consider H&S properly, he simply took the "here is a risk, this is what others do with it" approach without the needed understanding. And the risk needn't be great if you are not working alone - the idea being that the harness etc stops you going splat on the concrete, and your mates (or the fire brigade ?) get you down before the harness kills you.

He, being me, thought he had.

"here is a risk, this is what others do with it"

That's what I did. Then I relied on the the supplier of the harness and fall arrester to provide suitable equipment. And of course the safety advice that came with them. For some strange reason it made no mention of the possibility of suspension death. Who knew, did you before now?

Edit: I've just read this in the link you gave

The cause of this problem is called "suspension trauma." Fall protection researchers have recognized this phenomenon for decades. Despite this, data have not been collected on the extent of the problem; most users of fall protection equipment, rescue personnel, and safety and health professionals remain unaware of the hazard.

In other words, it's no good just slinging some gear at the workers and expecting them to know how to use it. And it's also no good giving them fall arrest systems (even if they know how to use it) if no-one had thought of how to get someone down it it gets used. Given the risks of hanging in a harness (especially the "suspension from back of chest" types commonly used in industry), that second bit is rather more important than people think.

It's impossible to argue with that.

It was almost dusk when we finished this job and an old boy came over and told us he thought it was dangerous to be working on a roof in such poor light. I explained that if I thought it dangerous we would stop and complete it in the morning. It was completed minutes after he went back into his house.



I had a little accident while doing this job. I had just come back from a diving holiday in Egypt with the eartha kits my lifting a 25kg inverter into the loft space meant I had a very unpleasant hour plus drive home. Thankfully the customer was very understanding and we had taken two vans to that job.

 

[ajrtd]

Even the elf n safety guys can get it wrong.

 

[mointainwalker]

Havee to say that I am astonished at the the two 20,000-post veterans of this site - noseall and woody - condemn the attitude of the Op as "interfering, H&S " and similar. What would they have done if people had been working in a two-metre deep unprotected trench ?

Would they keep their trap shut then ?

 

[PBC_1966]

Oh how very noble of you. And just how far would you go, on your altruistic crusade of selfless morality?

As far as reporting to the relevant authorities what I believe is a contravention of the relevant rules.#

Unlike you, who has so little care for society, humanity, morality, decency and honesty that you are so disgustingly selfish {.....} Remainder of distasteful rant removed in order to avoid its repetition

As you are so fond of the idea that anything you see, in your opinion, as being wrong should be reported to the relevant authority, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that your - to be frank - absolutely disgusting response to noseall is being reported to moderators.

 

[noseall]

And you are an inhuman scumbag who is not fit to lick dogs**t off the sole of my shoe.

And you are a disgusting, cowardly liar.

 

[noseall]

My moral compass directs me to save elderly folk from being ripped off by unscrupulous chancers by intervening and doing the work for them at a discounted rate or for free.

It also directs me to do pro-bono work for charitable organisations.

It also directs me to walk into a smoke filled house to alert the occupants their house is on fire.

It also directs me to intervene when one bloke is being set upon by three others.

It also directs me to intervene when an idiot is smacking up his girlfriend.

It does not however direct me to stand at my window and point a fat sweaty finger at blokes going about their business and anonymously cause a lot of people unnecessary grief. Not only are you disgusting BAS, but I bet you are overweight and your breath stinks.

Talk about morals? You are a morality vacuum and you are a coward.

 

[^woody^]

What would they have done if people had been working in a two-metre deep unprotected trench ?

I probably would not have seen them.

But the issue is not interfering H&S, but interfering people who should not be interfering.

This stops those interfering people from wasting everyone's time because say, they don't know if a trench is in sand or rock.




===============================
To all
All of B-A-S's posts have been removed from this thread.
BAS: If you won't play nicely we'll take your toys away.


Mod (not JD)
===============================

 

[ajrtd]

Thanks secret mod.

 

[SimonH2]

Which means you had not been trained properly in how to use them - so your employer didn't actually consider H&S properly, he simply took the "here is a risk, this is what others do with it" approach without the needed understanding. And the risk needn't be great if you are not working alone - the idea being that the harness etc stops you going splat on the concrete, and your mates (or the fire brigade ?) get you down before the harness kills you.

He, being me, thought he had.

"here is a risk, this is what others do with it"

That's what I did. Then I relied on the the supplier of the harness and fall arrester to provide suitable equipment. And of course the safety advice that came with them. For some strange reason it made no mention of the possibility of suspension death.[/QUOTE]
OK, so having been told that the equipment you'd been advised to buy was itself a hazard - did you take this up with the supplier ? Did you raise a RIDDOR on it ? Did you make any further enquiries ?
Or did you just say something like "f**k it" and toss them at the back of the store ?

My suspicion is that the supplier assumed that you either knew how to use them, or would get proper training from someone qualified. While you assumed that the supplier was responsible for telling you how to use it. Yes, I've made (wrong) assumptions in the past - and you know what assume makes don't you, it makes an ass out of u and me.

I'm not having a go at you because at least you have made an effort to consider it, unlike some who seem to think that safety gear is for sissies. It's just that somewhere along the line there's been a gap between recognising the risk and getting the right gear with the training in how to use it safely.
Also, on that much smaller house job, you've got scaffolding up. Compared to what I saw, I'd think the grip would be similar (the roof here is shallower pitch but smooth), and the height down to ground is similar. I'm assuming you'd have been "not very impressed" if someone suggested not using scaffolding or any other restraint system ?

Drifting off at a slight tangent, at work we needed to get access to some aerials on the roof a while ago. Through asking "people I know" (and having seen the vehicle parked up in town) we hired a local gas fitter who has a "fairly large" cherry picker - not the diddly little things that are easy to topple, but something suitable to take the weight of two men, and a length of flue liner (and then some) up high enough to drop said flue liner down a typical house chimney. While working, he told me why he came to buy it ...
Like, I suspect, most gas fitters - he'd in the past simply used ladders to get to the chimney, stood on the roof, hauled the coil of flue liner up on a rope, and manhandled it down the chimney. One day as he went up the cat ladder ... it slipped. He was quick enough and close enough to get one hand on the ridge tiles while the cat ladder landed in the garden two floors down. At that point he "re-assessed his working method".

Who knew, did you before now?

As it happens, yes I did - even though I've had no training in use of harnesses. It came to me from a friend who has had training, as part of getting his "ticket" for various aerial work platforms - though the reason he gave wasn't quite the same (same result, different physiological mechanism).

But the issue is not interfering H&S, but interfering people who should not be interfering.
This stops those interfering people from wasting everyone's time because say, they don't know if a trench is in sand or rock.

There you go again, assuming that no-one not involved in the job could have a clue.
Sure there are some nosey parkers who wouldn't know the difference between rock and sand if some was dropped on their head - but some of us do. Round here, if I saw people working in an unsupported 2m trench then I'd "probably" say something about it.

I have a question for you. Suppose you see people working in a deep unsupported trench, and you know from experience that "round 'ere" it's not going to be solid rock. Presumably from what you written so far you'll say nowt because it's nothing to do with you ?
Now suppose you later see on the news/read in the local rag/hear on the grapevine that the trench collapsed and people have died. Would your response be, oh dear, but it's their own fault, nothing to do with me ? Or would you feel that you should have said something ?

You may find this interesting
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causinj/kinds-of-accident.pdf
I couldn't find figures for actual numbers, but figure 1 shows the percentage of accidents that are fatal by category. The first 3 are :
Drowning/asphyxiation, Fall, Trapped by collapse - I don't know whether a trench collapsing would result in a statistic under asphyxiation or trapped by collapse.

 

[^woody^]

I have a question for you. Suppose you see .....

I don't live my life by maybe's and could have done's.

And the world gets on perfectly well without relying on me to walk around reporting the plethora of employment health and safety breaches I see during the day.

 

[SimonH2]

Let's remember that the question was, basically, should you raise concerns when you see something going on which you think is dangerous?

Correct.

Nobody has suggested that such a person, probably inexpert, probably only partially informed, should be able to stop the activity, only whether they should report it to people who do have the expertise, and who can get all the relevant information.

Mostly correct - I think a few here have assumed that was the intension. Especially since, in this case, work was stopped.

I wonder how many children, now dead, might still be alive if someone had decided that the noises and the cries they could hear were something to do with them? On average two women a week are killed in this country by their current or ex-partner. Anybody like to claim that not one of those deaths might well have been prevented if somebody had decided that what was going on next door was something to do with them?

The analogy I was going to ask certain people was this one :
You are driving along a road, and ahead of you a little old lady/gentleman is crossing the road. Clearly they've judged the situation and think they can do it safely, but you think you're going to reach them before they have got out of your way.
Do you (A) slow down because even though they've made a mistake, you have a duty of care to others; or (b) keep going and if you hit them and they die or are seriously injured, well tough, it was their choice to be there ?
Would that change if it was, say, a young child ? Why ?

We live in something called a society, and we all derive benefits from it. With those benefits come responsibilities, one of which is to report violations of the law, or situations which you have good reason to believe are violations, or should be investigated, etc.
It's not being a curtain-twitching nosey parker, it's not interfering with peoples rights, it's being a decent, concerned member of society.

Quite.

 

[SimonH2]

I don't live my life by maybe's and could have done's.

From which I assume then that your answer would be "you'd say nothing and not consider yourself to have any culpability whatsoever in people dying". I think we can see where your moral compass points - all I'll say is that I personally think you attitude is obnoxious to any right minded person.

And the world gets on perfectly well without relying on me to walk around reporting the plethora of employment health and safety breaches I see during the day.

But you see, it doesn't. That you've been lucky enough not to have been involved in any of the many, many, many statistics doesn't change that. If you see a plethora of employment health and safety breaches during your day, and say nothing, then you are a real part of those statistics.

 

[PBC_1966]

We're talking about different things here, and really some of these analogies are a little silly.

If a little old man crosses the road and misjudges your approaching speed so you are in danger of reaching him before he's clear, then obviously you have a moral duty to slow down and avoid him. If you see a woman being dragged off the street or a child being abducted, then intervening in whatever way possible is the right thing to do.

But if we're talking about somebody who is merely taking a risk himself, and not directly harming anybody else, it's rather different. In some cases he might be unaware of the risk he's taking or planning to take, and might even welcome a little constructive advice - Like standing in the electrical aisle of Lowe's, B&Q or wherever and hearing bad advice being given we might feel it the "friendly" thing to do to say "Excuse me, but..." and explain that what's being suggested is not really the best idea. I've certainly done that before now and been thanked for it. But running off to the authorities and getting somebody tied up in all that entails when he's just doing something - albeit foolish - which endangers only himself, no.