Bus hits platform

o
Good Morning Mr Accessible,

Thank you for your reply, the content of which is noted.

Please be assured that the National Obsession in the UK with Wearing Hi-Viz Vests while still undertaking dangerous tasks, or doing them in a dangerous manner has not gone un-noticed by me and appears to be based upon two factors....
1) A Fundamental Misinterpretation of what the Employers Common Law and Legislative Dutys actually are ?
and
2) A misguided desire by some persons to avoid Vicarious Liability for Employees Killed or Injured in the Course of their Employment ?

So lets start by looking at what these two dutys really are....
Section 2(1) of The HSW Act 1974 clearly states that " It shall be the Duty of every Employer to ensure So Far As Reasonably Practicable the Health , Safety and Welfare of all his Employees" : With Section 3(1) stating the same obligation in statute towards all Non-Employees.

Question. But how is this Statutory Obligation to be achieved ?
Answer. By Application of " Safe Systems of Work" from the Judgment of HL in the Precedent Decision on this subject, which is Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd. v. English [1937] 3. All ER628 . With a Clipped-On Harness being a perfect Example of a Safe System of Work ( SSW) to avoid Fatal Falls when Working at Height.

Question. So what is the Standard that we should aim to achieve, when implementing this Common Law obligation known as "Safe Systems of Work" ?
Answer. Again this subject can be found in English Common Law as eloquently stated by Asquith LJ on page 747 to be " As Low as Reasonably Practicable" ( ALARP), arising from HL decision in Edwards. v. National Coal Board [1949] 1. All ER 743.

So here we have it, no need to interpret the Employers Dutys regarding Worker Safety any further, because its now Crystal clear. This means that all Workplace Hazards in the UK have to be pre-identified by the CEO or MD, then Risk Assessed via his Delegated Authority to the Safety Manager, with all necessary Control Measures put into practice to reduce the possibility and probability of a Fatal or Disabling Injury arising from an incident involving these Workplace Hazards, to a level 'As Low as Reasonably Practicable' : Please note this does to not mean No Hazards, because to achieve that I would have to stay in Bed all day. No the Law recognises that some Jobs are inherently more Hazardous than others, for example a Tower Crane Driver is exposed to a much higher Level of Risk than the Security Man 80 metres below him. It simply means ALARP, unless the Job can be undertaken in some other much safer manner.

This can best be explained with an Example....
On 15th December 2012 this Excellent Vertikal Website depicted a large MEWP sitting completely unsecured on Two RSJ's mounted on Steelwork 80 metres above ground level in a new Building under Construction in Eemshaven, NL. This Machine was not chained down, nor Bolted securely to the Steelwork and relied solely on Gravity to hold it in place on the two exposed RSJ's 80 metres up. This then was a perfect Example of an Unsafe System of Work, because it put the MEWP Operator at Risk of Falling 80 metres to his Death, if the MEWP was blown off the exposed steelwork by a Gust of Wind...and he was Clipped-On to the Basket.

So what is to be done about this ongoing Death Toll in the UK Workplace ?
My recommendation is that all Workers take Control of Safety ourselves, (as we are the persons exposed to Risks) of which we will all get 100% of the Benefit.
This should be done by close Collaboration with the Safety Manager, who should do a Risk Assessment in line with Reg 3(1) of The Management Regulations 1999.
Then ask for a Copy of the Risk Assessment, in order to devise a ' Safe System of Work' ( SSW) to undertake the Task Safely. If it cannot be done in complete Safety, then do not do it.

Finally and in closing, as you say all Fatal Incidents are Uniquely different, ( Not Accidents, as most are not Accidental) but all involve one or more of three common factors...
c) Unsafe Acts.
d) Unsafe Machines.
e) Unsafe Working Procedures.

So as I care passionately about Worker Safety myself and specialise in Crane Safety, may I suggest that you should not be exasperated , but instead make ALARP your best friend, as one day a life may depend on it ?
After all, if we dont Manage Safety Correctly, who will ?

With Kindest Regards
Mike Ponsonby BA



PS. HSE figures confirm that 493 workers killed in past 3 yrs and circa 6400 killed at Work since Parliament first enrolled The HSW Act in 1974.

AccessibL
Hi Alan,
Can I just say that the 'states' bit I put in and you refer to was actually copied and pasted. So there are no doubts about it. I suggest you read it properly. You also go on to use similar language yourself some paragraphs later.
25% of your list is 'unconfirmed' and your website appears to be financially involved in your opinions.
I'd say your thoughts don't count. Although I'm ready to listen. I find it all exasperating!

vertikal editor
Many thanks for your comment Alan which we would agree with entirely.

We have been told by someone that was on the scene soon after the impact - that the anchor points on this unit were connected to a part of the structure outside of the platform,and that when the bucket was ripped off they could well have been dragged through a ragged hole in the falling platform, which could easily have severed arteries or caught their heads etc... - As you point out it also seems as though the fibreglass bucket may have provided some cushioning. All in a all a very rare situation.

Had the platform not been ripped off, as is more typically the case in this sort of incident, it is almost certain that they would have been bounced out of the platform and - as in most cases with this type of incident sustained fatal injuries.

We strongly advocate the use of harnesses in boom type lifts, with the usual exceptions of course such as over water. However we also acknowledge that in some rare situations a harness may not have helped and in some even rarer cases might have been detrimental.

The same can be said of a car seat belt, but no one in their right mind would suggest that we stop wearing seat belts just in case we experience a one in a thousand incident where the belt is a problem rather than a life saver.

Alan Howes
AccessibL,

I have just read the main article above and no where can I see where it “states” that the two men “… ‘came’ better off by not wearing a harness” as suggested in your comment below.

What it does say is “… they ‘might’ have been better off without them given the anchor points on the particular machine”.

The particular machine in question being a van mounted platform. Many older models have anchor points situated around waist height and so are completely useless when used in conjunction with an adjustable lanyard in a work restraint configuration.

However, this is not always the case with newer van mounted platforms or indeed most other booms, and unless the anchor points in this incident can be verified to be the older type, then for me a correctly worn safety harness and suitably anchored lanyard should of been worn without question.

I am sure this was the message vertikal was aiming to get across given their past stance and active promotion of pro-harness use within the access industry, however I would be grateful if the editor would indeed clarify in greater detail for the benefit of its readers?

The article also states “…and ripped the basket clean off the machine. The two men, both in their 20s, went with it to the ground”. It could be argued that the basket may have helped cushion their impact when hitting the ground, I am assuming they remained inside it?

Had it not been ripped off then the likelihood of them being catapulted out of the basket instead would have been extremely high and a fall from six metres has on proven fatal on many occasion.

Further to the comment “What do statistics prove?” they can teach us a great deal. One alarming statistic now coming to light is that out of the five last known UK MEWP fatalities, four could well have been prevented by the correct wearing or anchoring of safety harnesses:

June 2011 – Whitchurch | Fall | Harness worn, not attached | Age 41

June 2012 – Glasgow | Thrown from basket unconfirmed | Age 39

June 2012 – Braintree | Fall | Harness worn, not attached | Age 50

June 2013 – Pembroke | Fall | Harness worn, not attached | Age 50

AccessibL, please don’t see my comments as personally directed at you as they are intended for the industry as a whole. Much has been done to promote correct harness use in boom type platforms over the years, but it is evident that much more still needs to be done.

Though it may be difficult to teach many an ‘old dog a new trick’ which is clearly demonstrated in the specific age range given above, this latest incident involved two young twenty year-olds, I for one am a parent, as I am sure are many who are reading this, we need to be responsible and not endorse or encourage bad practice and reckless habits in a new, younger generation of operators.

Regards

Alan Howes
MEWPSAFETY.co.uk

AccessibL
Mike,

Thank you for you comments. Please note, though, that this repartee is based around an article that states that the 'consumers' came off better by not wearing a harness than by wearing one. You never know what sort of accident you're going to have.

What do statistics prove? Every case is individual.

My main point was the fact of the unnecessary acoutrements being demanded by most sites these days. I have worked in the industry for some time. In fact, I remember when nothing extra dropped on your head without a hat, and no-one got... well, I dunno, run over or mistaken for a policeman with/out a hi-viz.

Oh, I wear my harness. It's just not worth listening to the stupidity that follows if I don't. Strange how quick that changed! I wear my glasses when I can't avoid it. I have reached the time of life where I am finding glasses for reading to be really handy. I have bought a pair of varifocals which are totally useless, and I am blaming the relatively recent use of safety glasses for destroyiny my eyesight. I might be wrong, but I was alright until I started with them.

Gloves on site are a menace. Contamination and hygiene are just ridiculous. There should be a law about it!

I have, I can assure you, one of the strongest self-preservation instincts you will find on this whole planet. And I don't think it will be improved by some pretty stupid dressing-up rules.

And railways! I know quite a lot of train-drivers. Not a single bloke I know is stupid enough to crash a train because of seeing someone wearing a yellow hi-viz instead of an orange one.Or even missing 'em because they haven't got the trousers on. Has the world gone mad?

I look forward to your thoughts......

Tmayes
It sounds like to me that Mr accessible has worked in the real world of construction.

o
Good Afternoon Mr Accessible,

Worker Safety is one of my Core Values, so I find it perplexing to read the Words of another Worker, who wishes to be allowed to Not Wear a Clipped-On Harness and therefore run the Risk of a Fatal Injury by falling from a Height. Before proceeding, lets look at the facts....

HSE figures confirm that 149 Men and Women were killed at work in 2012.
HSE figures confirm that 173 Men and Women were killed at work in 2011.
HSE figures confirm that 171 Men and Women were killed at work in 2010.

The Biggest Single Cause of Fatal Injuries in the UK in the past three years was 'Falls from Height' so would wearing a A Clipped-On Harness result in less Fatal Injuries...you tell me ?

More to the point, should your Employer be reading this Excellent Vertikal Blog, then in your own words you have just handed him the best defence he could ever wish for. This is because that in the undesirable event of you personally suffering a Fatal or Disabling Fall caused by not wearing a Clipped-On Harness then your Widow and Children would be prevented from making a P.I. claim against your Employer, because he would then be able to say " Had the Deceased been Wearing the Harness that we gave him Your Honour, then he would not have fell to his Death, but as he refused to wear his Harness, then we as his Employer are not liable for his Death, due to his Personal Contributory Negligence".

To confirm this point, they would also cite the precedent decision for Contributory Negligence in Not Wearing a Clipped-On Harness which is the celebrated case of Cummings. v. Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd. [1962] HL. 1 All ER 623 which indeed exonerated the Employer from all Liability, simply because the Deceased Worker declined to wear a Clipped-On Fall Arrest Harness.

So for the future may I suggest that you...
(a) Stop believing the lies printed by the gutter press about HSW and
(b) Start to Embrace Safety in the Workplace because one day your life might just depend on it ?

Worker Safety is important to me, your Safety should be important to you, so lets do all that we can to improve Safety and ensure that everyone goes Home in one piece. After all we go to work to earn Money, not get killed ?

Kind Regards
Mike Ponsonby BA

AccessibL
'One of those rare occasions where
they might have been better off without them given the anchor points on the particular machine'
Harnesses are daft. There might be a time and a place; but usually they are useless, get in the way, and provide more ammunition for the Jobsworth 'Safety' people to impose stupid rules. Like wearing safety glasses when sharing the same air as the general public, and wearing gloves that get in the way, and are contaminated by what you are doing. You can wash your hands, as people have been doing for quite some time, I believe. Quite possibly THOUSANDS of years. But once you get battery acid or oil on your gloves, your pockets fall apart and your chances of testicular cancer soar. How safe is that?
Every time you think they can't make any more stupid rules..... they DO!