30.05.2026

Over obsesive health & safety

Obsessions are often unhealthy, and when applied illogically or incorrectly, can even be dangerous. Rightly or wrongly, in construction - whether it be a home extension or a multi-billion nuclear power station - Health & Safety tends to dominate the day to day activities, sometimes obsessively to the detriment of project schedules, cost and ultimately safety, by bringing the whole subject into disrepute.

It can even border on the ridiculous, delegating safety to paperwork, tick box checks and extra gadgets, even on work areas/practices that quite frankly do not need it and are simply applied as an ass-covering company policy, or even worse, the H&S manager’s preference as they try to gold plate what their predecessors did.

Improved safety on site is, of course, more than welcome… it is absolutely essential. I worked on large construction sites almost 40 years ago, and some of the ‘accepted’ methods and shortcuts taken then were plain insanity. A donkey jacket and a pair of boots were all the PPE you needed, whatever the task or risk.

Yes, we should all welcome the safety improvements that have come into force since then, particularly those related to the design and operation of cranes, telehandlers and aerial work platforms. There is no question that the increasingly consistent standards and directives - CE, AS/NZS, ANSI and now ISO - have resulted in safer equipment from all manufacturers, even if their detailed design points differ a little. They all comply and are safe to use.

However, in the past year or so some major contractors have started making up their own rules, particularly in and around London in the UK, refusing to let work platforms onto their sites unless they have a specific type of overhead crushing protection system - even when they are already equipped with the manufacturers’ latest hi-tech offering and comply with all the relevant standards, approvals and best practices.

Not only do the contractors want their preferred system fitted, but they are unwilling to pay anything towards installing the additional system. As a result, IPAF felt it needed to step in and issued a strong statement regarding secondary guarding systems/entrapment protection, advising contractors that whatever system is installed, it cannot replace sensible, diligent safety practices. As IPAF and the UK’s Health & Safety Executive stress, ‘there is no substitute for good planning, competent supervision and vigilant operations’.

You could argue that if all work was carried out correctly, there would be no need for the growing number of idiot proofing devices in the first place.

Give your view in the online poll