Safety is a mindset, not a piece of paper

[Roderick]

The individuals in every case HAVE to accept part of that responsibility in all cases, not just blindly assume that someone else has done it for them.

I couldn't agree more, people SHOULD take responsibility for their own actions but, as witnessed in many threads on this forum alone, many don't.

 

Trying to assess every risk imaginable would quickly become impractical and prohibitive so there are situations where you will need to fix the outcome rather than preventing it from happening.

If I can use the humble circuit breaker as an example, if everything and everyone would always follow all the rules and regulations on electricity, you wouldn't need them! But because things can go wrong which could lead to a dangerous situation, they are there to fix the outcome, shut off the power if it is dangerous.

 

It is my strong believe that healthy discussion and thought provoking statements can improve safety much better than any piece of paper. Safety should be an integrated part of everyone's job but sadly, at the moment, too often still seen as an add-on. If people rely on RA's or other paperwork without thinking for themselves, that could lead to dangerous situations as they may overlook risks that are the result of a number of combined issues that no-one could have imagined to occur or become a risk.

 

Safety is a mindset, not a piece of paper.

 

Your thoughts?

[Ynot]

yes, I think that on the whole I can agree with that.

 

There are two attitudes in evidence these days - across the whole of the general working culture, and they're pretty much diametrically opposed.

 

There are the H & S 'nuts' who do indeed insist on everything being documented to the nth degree, even if the possibilities of incidences is pretty remote (as with the collapse atop a talle original topic.

 

Then we have the slack end of the work force who take NO notice of the simple basics of H & S, and are probably the ones who CAUSE the majority of incidents, (and by sods law don't often get affected themselves!)

 

But I'd like to think that the majority of what I call 'sensible' people fall between these two poles.

 

I can think of few people I've worked with down the years who have been 100% sticklers for safety rules, even the more sensible ones. But I count a LOT of those I've worked with as practical types who (even before the words risk assessment were made popular) looked at any job and decided for themselves whether there was any risk attached and whether they needed to modify their plan of action.

 

To a man, I'd bet that somewhere along the line every single one of them, (and of us here on the BR) have made a mistake - a poor judgment, taken an ill-considered risk or two over the years, (I know I have!! :P ) but the key is that when you DO make those mistakes you LEARN from them, and hopefully don't maim/kill anyone in the process!

[Ike]

Safety should be an integrated part of everyone's job but sadly, at the moment, too often still seen as an add-on.

When I learnt to wire a plug I learnt to do it safely, when I learnt to use a 'scope I learnt to do it safely, when I learnt to joint cables I learnt to do it safely and when I learnt to use a counterweight set I learnt to do it safely. There was no distinction whatsoever between the task and the H&S aspects.

 

In my opinion the main reason for H&S being seen as an add on is the 'H&S person', the idea of H&S qualifications and consultants. Real health and safety can only be gained with an intimate knowledge of the job and nobody can be expected to have this without having done the job for a reasonable length of time. When 'experts' try you end up with masses of paperwork, stupid generic rules (no moving the scope with people in the basket etc.) or worse. OK we do need research but most of the actually useful stuff I've seen has come from university students from non-H&S disciplines.

 

People do take responsibility for their own health and safety and the ratio of stupid accidents to safe events proves this. It doesn't take a genious to work out that a forum where people posted everything they witnessed that wasn't unsafe it would soon get very very full. The insinuation that the great unwashed are incapable of looking after themselves and need their hands holding every step of the way by H&S 'experts' is quite insulting and the idea that people don't care is rather bizarre, it is after all their health and safety.

 

I don't agree with your comments on circuit breakers. Systems deteriorate with age and just because someone followed all the rules when it was installed doesn't mean it's not going to develop a fault within it's lifetime. Inspection and testing can't preempt every failure.

 

No matter how strictly you follow the rules and regulations you're always going to have accidents as they are based on minimising risks for the widest range of situations practical, not eliminating them.

[Ynot]

Excellent post, Ike.

:)

[Simon Lewis]

No matter how strictly you follow the rules and regulations you're always going to have accidents as they are based on minimising risks for the widest range of situations practical, not eliminating them.

 

In fact, a risk based approach rather than a 'fixed regulation' approach is how health and safety has evolved over the years. However, many like to have risks expressed in absolute black and white, legal / illegal, which leads to the "that's banned because of health and safety" stories we joke about.

 

Before HSAW 1974, the "rules" tended to protect equipment and management. Correctly interpreted and implemented, I believe the present approach has much to commend it.

 

Simon

[Ynot]

Correctly interpreted and implemented, I believe the present approach has much to commend it.

 

And therein lies the rub.

 

As we all know (I hope) it's the interpretation and over-zealousness of those given petty powers that have brought tears to so many eyes over the ridiculous OTT conclusions that are drawn every day.

[JimWebber]

Correctly interpreted and implemented, I believe the present approach has much to commend it.

 

And therein lies the rub.

 

As we all know (I hope) it's the interpretation and over-zealousness of those given petty powers that have brought tears to so many eyes over the ridiculous OTT conclusions that are drawn every day.

 

 

Just to drag this conversation even further of topic, unfortunately many of these people who are carrying out this interpretation have, not only as has already been said, little or no knowledge of the job or procedures involved, but more pertinately are not doing it with a view to create a safer system (or place) of work.

 

At the risk of being controversial I do believe that many of these H&S Bods, and their somewhat imaginative policies are there to keep the "Injury Lawyers R us 4u.com" brigade at bay... Something in the order of this...

 

"If we make sure everybody is wrapped up in cotton wool while they are working for us, they cannot get hurt. Because if they get hurt they may sue us."

 

Sure, the H&SE do some stirling work out there with their own inspectors - who are truly independant, who have an understanding of H&S, and have a geniune interest in creating safer workplaces.

 

In all these ridiculous stories involving ridiculous "Health and Safety" policies have any of them actually involved the H & SE?

 

Am I being Cynical?

 

Jim

[Wuddy]

The individuals in every case HAVE to accept part of that responsibility in all cases, not just blindly assume that someone else has done it for them.

>SNIP<

If I can use the humble circuit breaker as an example, if everything and everyone would always follow all the rules and regulations on electricity, you wouldn't need them! But because things can go wrong which could lead to a dangerous situation, they are there to fix the outcome, shut off the power if it is dangerous.

>SNIP<

Your thoughts?

 

My thoughts,

 

I think, reading the above statement, that you don't fully understand the purpose of a circuit breaker, the use of which are an integral part of the Regulations of Electrical Installations.

 

If I can use the humble final ring circuit as an example, it is quite possible, within the rules and regulations, to innocently connect loads well in excess of the cable rating, according to your theory, we just let it burn?

[Guest lightnix]

Correctly interpreted and implemented, I believe the present approach has much to commend it.

 

And therein lies the rub.

 

As we all know (I hope) it's the interpretation and over-zealousness of those given petty powers that have brought tears to so many eyes over the ridiculous OTT conclusions that are drawn every day.

True, although isn't this as much due to the need for protection from the Compensation Culture?

[Ike]

In fact, a risk based approach rather than a 'fixed regulation' approach is how health and safety has evolved over the years.

It seems to me like we're actually heading back towards a 'fixed regulation' approach. With LOLER, PUWER, WaH etc requiring compliance with EU directives/British standards and those standards getting ever more prescriptive. Then we have the vast increase in number and requirements of the standards relating to best practice (BS7909 etc.) which I think most will agree will eventually be hard to avoid if you want any work. On top of that we have IPAF, IRATA, NICEIC and all the other safety organisations whose words are more and more frequently being taken as law. Add to that the increase in official nationally recognised schemes (first aid, security industry association and p4rt pea for example) and I think you can see where I'm going...

 

While I agree a lot of the basis for current health and safety legislation is risk based in practice I see it's current state as being rather messier and as others say it's certainly open to regular mis-interpretation.

[Ynot]

In all these ridiculous stories involving ridiculous "Health and Safety" policies have any of them actually involved the H & SE?

 

Am I being Cynical?

Not at all.

 

The problem is that many people in the less experienced echelons of many businesses see a "H & S manager" (often self-appointed..) giving out edicts based on their view of the safety regimes, but to be perfectly honest many of them have NO actual legal responsibility or authority. They are often just some jobsworth who has decided they know best and will interpret the regs as they see fit.

 

Those who are maybe more formal, eg within a local authority, likely have a little more clout, but again still they can often be operating without full legal backing - just their interpretations again.

 

However, to Joe Soap, putting the initials "H & S" in front of any title immediately conveys the impression of the 'establishment' and implies they have the word of law behind them - which they seldom actually do!

The same Joe Soap unwittingly lumps them in with the actual HSE, which is very unfortunate, because the HSE chaps are in the main an extremely sensible and world-wise team of people who mostly apply common sense to most situations.

[Andrew C]

People do take responsibility for their own health and safety and the ratio of stupid accidents to safe events proves this. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a forum where people posted everything they witnessed that wasn't unsafe it would soon get very very full. The insinuation that the great unwashed are incapable of looking after themselves and need their hands holding every step of the way by H&S 'experts' is quite insulting and the idea that people don't care is rather bizarre, it is after all their health and safety.

Just to pick up on this idea, and drag it away from "theatre".

 

"Everyone looks after their own H&S"? OK, so what did it take to get hod-carriers off building sites? This was always a dangerous task, undertaken by some of the least able members of society (and I don't mean uni students on vac jobs!). No one was interested in finding a safer method until the builders were forced to change. Hod-carriers were 10 a penny so they just did what they were told, or were sacked.

 

One industry is recalcitrant and needs legislation to force compliance, and then then we all have to toe the new line. Even if that line is inappropriate/insane in any other field.

[kerry davies]

NEBOSH was officially recognised in the UK in 2000 and IOSH founded in 2003, on April Fools day, by the way! So the H&S sector is still finding it's feet and there are people out there with modern H&S qualifications who may have absolutely no comprehension of actually doing the job. There are also continuous EU directives, interpreted differingly by each member countrys legislature, often enforced by over-stretched people who are often under-trained. It is also a commercial sector of its' own and there is a significant amount of money to be made, businesses built and careers to be pursued.

Prior to these initiatives the leading H&S people were to be found in major industries, often those nationalised after the second world war and with a poor record of accidents and incidents.( Steel, coal, power supply etc.) (I have been told unofficially that NEBOSH was based on my own H&S training with BT/GPO Telephones.) In these sectors safety reps were appointed from amongst the working staff and their working experience was a major factor in their ability to apply H&S in a sensible way. They were never simply H&S appointees, they had a normal job to do.

Today there is an over-reliance on paper qualifications (degrees in sound/light/production etc???) and H&S has been treated in the same idiotic manner. There is, now, absolutely no necessity for someone gaining a NEBOSH Cert or Dip to have any knowledge of the process that they are supposed to be supervising on a H&S basis. This is where the silly stuff comes in and why the HSE has an ongoing struggle to make H&S sensible.( Myth of the month etc.) There is also a culture of "appoint someone before we get sued!"

In the tallescope thread I suggested that the OP asked the "H&S bod" for his work experience, whether he had been trained in harness work and whether there was a rescue plan in place. Alexander Pope was dead right when he talked about a little learning being a dangerous thing, just knowing the paperwork side is worse than useless in any process driven scenario.

I don't claim to know everything about H&S, or anything else come to that, but I do know that kids up chimneys, candles in coalmines and much else have disappeared because of our Health, Safety and Welfare at Work culture. The resistance in our industry to H&S makes a mockery of any high-flown opinions of our worth, if it is good enough for unskilled labourers on a building site, it's good enough for us.

[Ynot]

Another good post.

It also reminds me of my own early training in safety.

Like Kerry, I started my day job with the old GPO telecomms, (though significantly later than he... )

I served an apprenticeship (almost unheard of these days!) and even in my youth in the 70's safety was a BIG part of my training. We were issued with PPE where essential to any given job or encouraged to invest in some more personal items (steelies, for one) and were given financial incentives to do so.

 

We were shown MANY safety films, from the guy using the wrong screwdriver (ending up with it sticking out of his palm) to the engineer who failed to properly gas-test a manhole, blowing himself and his van up! And they weren't short on graphics, either! There was also the common tale of the exchange installer who left hie metal strapped watch on when pulling in cables by the big 50V DC bus bars, and managing to drop his wrist betwixt the pos and neg rails - losing a hand in the process.

 

But what that did was instill a basic understanding of safety (we didn't call it H & S in them bygone days!) and Kerry is quite right - the safety reps were part of the general workforce, and by God they were the last chaps you wanted to get on the wrong side of!! Commit a safety violation in those days and you knew about it pretty sharpish! :)

[Ike]

"Everyone looks after their own H&S"? OK, so what did it take to get hod-carriers off building sites?

I think it's a fair assumption that hod-carriers did everything in their power to look after their own health and safety and it was those higher up the chain that failed.

 

Obviously we do need ways of protecting workers and the basic health and safety legislation (HASAW etc.) seems to do that well however I think it needs to be clear that this is here to help workers protect themselves and not to allow 'experts' to protect the workers from their own stupidity. In my experiance even the slightest suggestion of the latter creates a lot of resentment from both sides and if anything is actually counterproductive in relation to peoples health and safety.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm all for improving health and safety and do see the need for some legislation however in my opinion changes should come from the workers and not 'qualified safety professionals' as I believe NEBOSH so eloquently put it.