Post Office lean on posties

Ian Smith said:

JLB said:

Ian Smith said:

Unfortunately, the report stops short (at least to my cursory
reading) of advocating applying teh normal hierarchy of risk-reduction
to at-work driving. It advocates risk-assessments and training, but
nothing more. Sadly, therefore, it seems unlikley that we'll see
companies in court being asked to justify letting employees drive
when they could have caught the bus instead.

I think you are definitely misinterpreting what the report says about
enforcement. Citing HSWA and MHSWR is bog standard.

Indeed, but I am not misrepresenting teh report. The report does not
set out a blow-by-blow sequence of how enforcement might be applied,
but it does give examples. In all of teh examples, it advocates no
more than risk assessment and consequent appropriate training.

That is, I'm not (and did not) suggest that more legislation would be
required. The report advocates applying HSW to driving, but stops
short of doing anything more than suggesting risk assessmnets and
training. Which is what I said above. Which is not misinterpreting
anything (so fas as I am aware). Perhaps you could say what I have
misinterpreted and where I did so?

Fine, I misinterpreted your remarks and drew the wrong conclusions about
what you were getting at.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

almost all the enforcement they want with just HSWA. What you refer to
as the "normal hierarchy" of risk reduction is implied by HSWA and
effectively a requirement of MHSWR.

But strangely is not proposed as something to be applied to driving in
the report, even though the report does contain sections on how HSW
might be applied, and what employers might do, and that they could do
risk assessments and training (and, by implication, probably nothing
else).

I doubt very much that it would be possible to control how HSWA was
applied once it was decided to enforce it. Although the report describes
various possible outcomes as you have summarised, unless some change was
made to HSWA and other Regulations to disapply anything other
requirements for training etc. the door will be wide open.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence, there is no need for any additional legislation.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

It was in the bit of the report you cited with apparent disapproval but
once again it seems I misunderstood your concern. I thought you were
arguing that only HSWA and MHSWR would not allow adequate intervention.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You should however be careful what you wish for. For example the
imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible. That means getting off the
bike. Either walking or driving a car instead would be acceptable means
of complying with these particular Regulations.

Actually, no. My head is much higher when walking than when doing teh
vast majority of my riding.

The height of your head is not strictly a relevant consideration:
" “work at height” means work in any place, including a place—
(c) in the course of obtaining access to or egress from any place except
by a staircase
in a permanent workplace;
(d) at or below ground level,
from which, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury; and any
reference to carrying out work at height includes obtaining access to or
egress from such place while at work."

If you have a bike such that you could not be injured falling from it
then I agree these Regs cannot apply.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, it does not mean getting off the bike, if teh bike is key
to what is going on, any more than teh hierarchy requires that you
don't do any work if teh work you might otherwise have done might
constitute any sort of hazard.

I'm aware of that. However, in many instances a cyclist at work could
have difficulty persuading the relevant authority that the bike is key
to what is going on. If it's just a case of going from A to B then other
means are available. Even with that hurdle crossed, these Regs are of
course not done:

"6.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that work is not carried out at
height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely
otherwise than at height.
(2) Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take
suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably
practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury."

Now, just what measures might an employer think are suitable and
sufficient to prevent injury? Did someone say "helm#$3^<.@#¬

NO CARRIER

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:47:08 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

For example the
imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible. That means getting off the
bike. Either walking or driving a car instead would be acceptable means
of complying with these particular Regulations.

But presumably not using a bus or a lorry.

I merely gave two examples of what could be numberless ways of complying.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB said:

Ian Smith said:

JLB said:

Ian Smith wrote:

> Unfortunately, the report stops short (at least to my cursory
> reading) of advocating applying teh normal hierarchy of risk-reduction
> to at-work driving. It advocates risk-assessments and training, but
> nothing more. Sadly, therefore, it seems unlikley that we'll see
> companies in court being asked to justify letting employees drive
> when they could have caught the bus instead.

I think you are definitely misinterpreting what the report says about
enforcement. Citing HSWA and MHSWR is bog standard.

Indeed, but I am not misrepresenting teh report. The report does not
set out a blow-by-blow sequence of how enforcement might be applied,
but it does give examples. In all of teh examples, it advocates no
more than risk assessment and consequent appropriate training.

That is, I'm not (and did not) suggest that more legislation would be
required. The report advocates applying HSW to driving, but stops
short of doing anything more than suggesting risk assessmnets and
training. Which is what I said above. Which is not misinterpreting
anything (so fas as I am aware). Perhaps you could say what I have
misinterpreted and where I did so?

Fine, I misinterpreted your remarks and drew the wrong conclusions about
what you were getting at.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

almost all the enforcement they want with just HSWA. What you refer to
as the "normal hierarchy" of risk reduction is implied by HSWA and
effectively a requirement of MHSWR.

But strangely is not proposed as something to be applied to driving in
the report, even though the report does contain sections on how HSW
might be applied, and what employers might do, and that they could do
risk assessments and training (and, by implication, probably nothing
else).

I doubt very much that it would be possible to control how HSWA was
applied once it was decided to enforce it. Although the report describes
various possible outcomes as you have summarised, unless some change was
made to HSWA and other Regulations to disapply anything other
requirements for training etc. the door will be wide open.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence, there is no need for any additional legislation.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

It was in the bit of the report you cited with apparent disapproval but
once again it seems I misunderstood your concern. I thought you were
arguing that only HSWA and MHSWR would not allow adequate intervention.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You should however be careful what you wish for. For example the
imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible. That means getting off the
bike. Either walking or driving a car instead would be acceptable means
of complying with these particular Regulations.

Actually, no. My head is much higher when walking than when doing teh
vast majority of my riding.

The height of your head is not strictly a relevant consideration:
" ³work at height² means work in any place, including a place‹
(c) in the course of obtaining access to or egress from any place except
by a staircase
in a permanent workplace;
(d) at or below ground level,
from which, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury; and any
reference to carrying out work at height includes obtaining access to or
egress from such place while at work."

If you have a bike such that you could not be injured falling from it
then I agree these Regs cannot apply.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, it does not mean getting off the bike, if teh bike is key
to what is going on, any more than teh hierarchy requires that you
don't do any work if teh work you might otherwise have done might
constitute any sort of hazard.

I'm aware of that. However, in many instances a cyclist at work could
have difficulty persuading the relevant authority that the bike is key
to what is going on. If it's just a case of going from A to B then other
means are available. Even with that hurdle crossed, these Regs are of
course not done:

"6.‹(1) Every employer shall ensure that work is not carried out at
height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely
otherwise than at height.
(2) Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take
suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably
practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury."

Now, just what measures might an employer think are suitable and
sufficient to prevent injury? Did someone say "helm#$3^<.@#¬

NO CARRIER

This could get interesting. Should lorry drivers wear helmets when climbing
in or out of their cabs?

It could be argued that as the person is at a height no greater than that
they would be at standing on the ground, that no further precautions need to
be taken beyond those at ground level.

It could also be argued that appropriate training will minimise the need for
PPE. It could also be argued that helmets appropriate for PPE use in such a
situation should be certified to an appropriate standard, one which covers
reasonably forseeable impacts.

One could also take into account the nature of the risk and indicate that
the track record with existing methods is exemplary and thus can be taken as
adequate. We do not require chefs to wear steel capped gloves when chopping
food as the risk to their fingers is below an acceptable maximum. Likewise
with cycles.
Surely there must be some degree of significance for a risk before one has
to act? or should anyone unloading a lorry (at a height greater than that of
a person on a bicycle) have to wear a safety harness and apropriate
retention system?

...d

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:07:53 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian
Smith <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

"It has been Government policy for many years that the health and
safety enforcing authorities should not investigate at-work road
traffic incidents"

One just has to look at the mess the so-called health and safety
bunch made of things when they took over the Railway Inspectorate,
all in the space of a few years. No other transport sector was
lumbered with this and the mess is being undone on the railways as
the Railway Inspectorate will shortly be moved out of the grasp of
their current masters. This will not be a moment too soon.

That's quite funny. When rail safety was handed to the HSE, it took over
the existing inspectorate and the existing staff. Nothing much changed.
Now that it is being taken off HSE once again the staff will be
transferred. Nothing much will change [1]. But, there has been this
extraordinary campaign in the specialist press to blame almost
everything on the HSE.

I'd really like to believe as you say that "the mess is being undone on
the railways" but there is no sign this government has a clue and it is
still following ruinous policies. I was so pleased that before the 1997
election Labour had committed itself to renationalising the whole
system. Ha bloody ha.

[1] Although I wholly approve of splitting the investigation work away
from inspection and enforcement.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:49:12 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

That's quite funny. When rail safety was handed to the HSE, it took over
the existing inspectorate and the existing staff.

Correct, on day one.

Quoted message said:

Nothing much changed.

Correct, on day one.

However, things did not continue as they did on day one. For an
example of the mess I suggest a study of the press conference
regarding Hatfield and the interim report. In the case of the press
conference the staff were factory inspectors and didn't know basic
things like whether the rail that broke was the traction current
return rail or not. In the case of the interim report the trouble
was a table that had obviously not been proof read by anyone with
even the most passing knowledge of railways. Although some of the
errors were relatively minor they should not have been made. The
error that claimed the train had a locomotive at each end was not
minor...

An organisation that was once world-renowned became something of a
joke in a few years. This must have been particularly galling for
those members of staff who did know what they were doing.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

JLB said:

Ian Smith said:

Actually, no. My head is much higher when walking than when doing teh
vast majority of my riding.

The height of your head is not strictly a relevant consideration:
" “work at height” means work in any place, including a place—
(c) in the course of obtaining access to or egress from any place except
by a staircase
in a permanent workplace;
(d) at or below ground level,
from which, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury; and any
reference to carrying out work at height includes obtaining access to or
egress from such place while at work."

If you have a bike such that you could not be injured falling from it
then I agree these Regs cannot apply.

You could be injured by a tea-cosey.

My main cycle (actually a tricycle rather than a bicycle) is arranged
such that my head has much reduced distance travel to strike the
ground than it does when I am standing. It was you that said standing
up would avoid the work at height issue, but standing up doubles (or
more, actually) teh distance my head has to fall to reach teh ground.
What's more, standing up puts me in an inherently less stable and more
precarious position.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JLB said:

The height of your head is not strictly a relevant consideration:
" “work at height” means work in any place, including a place—
(c) in the course of obtaining access to or egress from any place except
by a staircase
in a permanent workplace;
(d) at or below ground level,
from which, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury; and any
reference to carrying out work at height includes obtaining access to or
egress from such place while at work."

If you have a bike such that you could not be injured falling from it
then I agree these Regs cannot apply.

"could not" is not the relevant test. "a distance liable to cause
injury" is what it says, just up there where you quoted it. The distance
one falls off a bike is not liable to cause injury any more than the
distance one falls while walking is (well, possibly the bike is
marginally worse, but not much).

James

Ian Smith said:

JLB said:

Ian Smith said:

Actually, no. My head is much higher when walking than when doing teh
vast majority of my riding.

The height of your head is not strictly a relevant consideration:
" “work at height” means work in any place, including a place—
(c) in the course of obtaining access to or egress from any place except
by a staircase
in a permanent workplace;
(d) at or below ground level,
from which, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury; and any
reference to carrying out work at height includes obtaining access to or
egress from such place while at work."

If you have a bike such that you could not be injured falling from it
then I agree these Regs cannot apply.

You could be injured by a tea-cosey.

No doubt.

Quoted message said:

My main cycle (actually a tricycle rather than a bicycle) is arranged
such that my head has much reduced distance travel to strike the
ground than it does when I am standing. It was you that said standing
up would avoid the work at height issue, but standing up doubles (or
more, actually) teh distance my head has to fall to reach teh ground.
What's more, standing up puts me in an inherently less stable and more
precarious position.

Yes, I know that. The reason I correctly said that getting off the bike
and walking will avoid the work at height issue has *nothing* to do with
the risk of falling or of injury. It is simply that the Regs exclude
walking or standing on level ground, no matter how much more (or less,
whatever) risky it might be.

Don't blame me. I didn't write the Regs. I'm just the messenger.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

James Annan said:

JLB said:

The height of your head is not strictly a relevant consideration:
" “work at height” means work in any place, including a place—
(c) in the course of obtaining access to or egress from any place
except by a staircase
in a permanent workplace;
(d) at or below ground level,
from which, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken,
a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury; and
any reference to carrying out work at height includes obtaining access
to or egress from such place while at work."

If you have a bike such that you could not be injured falling from it
then I agree these Regs cannot apply.

"could not" is not the relevant test. "a distance liable to cause
injury" is what it says, just up there where you quoted it. The distance
one falls off a bike is not liable to cause injury any more than the
distance one falls while walking is (well, possibly the bike is
marginally worse, but not much).

Interesting argument. When I asked the HSE policy group about these Regs
last year during the consultation period they did not hesitate before
confirming that people riding bikes (conventional bikes, let us assume)
at work would be affected. Your interpretation seems to offer more
hope. Unless you ride an ordinary for work.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:02:38 +0000, JLB <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is absolutely not covered by the HSWA, all use of vehicles on
public roads is exempt.

Quoted message said:

Please quote the statute.

Actually you are sort of right - it is not so much exempt as quietly
ignored. An employer's duty is fulfilled, according to HSE, by
ensuring that the cars have functioning seatbelts, and other such
risk-compensating nonsense.

I am still not aware of any prosecution of any employer for failing to
take action to prevent their employees from killing or maiming using
the company's cars. Lorries, yes, but not cars, however many
convictions and crashes a driver might rack up.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

JLB said:

Interesting argument. When I asked the HSE policy group about
these Regs last year during the consultation period they did not
hesitate before confirming that people riding bikes (conventional
bikes, let us assume) at work would be affected. Your interpretation
seems to offer more hope. Unless you ride an ordinary for work.

Or one of these:
<http://www.atomiczombie.com/bicycles/skycycle/015.htm>

--
Dave...