Picture this. You are walking along a roadside pavement when your path is blocked or obstructed by the activities of a contractor working nearby.
Actually you probably don’t have to imagine it, I expect you have had to negotiate round such obstacles.
So, why “We’re alright Jack”?
Well I assume that you have heard the saying “I’m alright Jack, pull up the ladder” when someone is referring to the selfish activities of another person or organisation.
In this example it is the activities of the contractor that I am talking about. In particular those contractors working for the railway networks/companies or utility companies.
The very nature of most of their work requires some very stringent procedures and monitoring processes for them to complete their tasks safely but what of the safety of the people around them?
Duty of Care
The Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 places a duty of care on any organisation and the people working for it directly or indirectly to make sure that their activities do not put anyone at risk by their acts or omissions. This includes members of the public – you and me.
So why when these contractors have to take precautions to keep their employees safe do they consider that putting members of the public at risk of harm by not taking their safety into account is acceptable?
I am talking specifically about railway contractors now, who quite rightly take care to ensure the safety of their teams (employees) while they are working on the tracks and adjacent areas, yet park their vans and trucks on the local paths and pavements, effectively blocking them.
Protecting their employees.
Undoubtedly they have assessed the risk to their employees and anyone who comes within the confines of their area of work (the demised area), which includes getting to and from it. But although the general public will not have access to the contractors’ area of work. They are affected by the actions of them and this is where those contractors and their employees are remiss, because they have not considered how their actions affect the members of the public that need to use the path and who they have a duty of care to protect from harm. Especially when they so inconsiderately park their vehicles on the path.
How many Risk Assessments?
There are as many variants of risk assessment as there are tasks to be completed. Most of the time an organisation will complete risk assessments specific to the task or activity that is to be undertaken. However equally often they will only take into account the immediate activities involved in the task and forget or ignore the indirect issues, which where the incidents and accidents can happen because as far as they are concerned it is someone else’s problem.
But guess what it isn’t!
Consider a risk assessment for using a ladder. Most people will make reference to ‘The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (as amended)’ without fully understanding them. For example they will identify that there is no safer or suitable alternative means of access, how to use the ladder for the task etc… What they are unlikely to take into account are things like how operative will take the ladder to the place where they are going to use it (The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, as amended in 2002) apply here, how they are going to protect people around the area that they are working in from tools or objects being dropped or even from the user falling off the ladder. Sometime they won’t even consider how they are going to protect their employee from the activities of people outside their area of control like those same members of the public.
Stupid and selfish
From personal experience I can tell you the general public are both stupid and selfish when it comes to their own safety. Often putting themselves at risk by ignoring safety and control systems put in place by organisations to protect those same, selfish and stupid members of the public.
It is Important
This demonstrates just how important it is to consider all eventualities because if one of those members of that public does get injured, even if they have ignored the precautionary measures, you can bet that they will claim that the contractor was negligent in his duty of care to protect them and so are those contractors working on the railways by parking their vehicles on the paths and pavements.
Put up a barrier.
Just putting up barriers to prevent access is not enough, what an organisation should do is manage the situation i.e. put an alternative route in place that does not inconvenience the people that they are meant to be protecting.
The most commonly used but inappropriate option with most situations is to stop the activity or exclude unwanted intrusion, which is why “Elf ‘n’ Safety’” gets such bad press.
Good management
By properly managing an activity the task will be completed as required and everyone will be happy as well as safe without being unnecessarily inconvenienced.
What to do!
Are you certain that your risk assessments are secure enough to protect you from claims of negligence? To be sure contact us at Positive Health and Safety for a free review of your documents.
Adam, as ever a very well writen post! We have to setup cameras, lights, cables etc as part of our filming work and often in public places and it’s something we are very aware of. Even just the logistics of getting the equipment from the van to the venue is something we have to take into account. There are so many things to consider and articles like this (and professional consulting like your good self) really help us (and other businesses) stay on top of it all. As we know, it’s more cost effective to plan ahead than deal with a situation that could have been avoided!
Keep up the good work!
Well said Adam!,
I used to work as a Senior Operations Manager in Logistics; I had recently joined a company (a purveyor of well know biscuits and crisps) I managed the depot.
They had a very long loading dock with around 20 doors onto which would reverse in- coming artics for loading or unloading.
The dock was around 75′ long and around 5′high.
Loading dock personnel would use a mini stand-on fork truck called a P.O.S.E to load and unload with.
Within the first week of observing this I noticed the potential for a catastophic accident as there was no barrier preventing people from literally driving off the dock.
I noticed also that that when the Fork-lift trucks would place pallets on the dock to load, they always placed them in the same place, likewise for unloading.
I drew up a plan to have a barrier the full length of the loading dock with opening access gate through which the fork lift truck could place the out going and retrieve the incoming pallets.
The cost for this in 1990 was around £1800 going from memory.
The company thought it was a great idea.
Prior to getting it signed off, Ihad a visit from my local area manager who told me in no uncertain terms ” don’t try and impress anybody just because your’e new!! we have never had a problem with this before. The project was binned.
Three weeks later a guy on a P.O.S.E hit a bit of broken block from a pallet which wedged under his wheel.
He went over the dock followed closely by the truck ( helluva weight in itself) and a pallet of biscuits.
He was in Hospital for 5 months with a broken leg, pelvis, cuts and bruises.
I reported the accident officially, however the area manager had ordered the night shift to put up all these signs stating “do not drive pose’s across the loading dock”
I lost my job through this because I would not tow the comapny line and told the investigating authorities that no such signs were previously on display, I also showed them my plan that was binned.
When the guy finally went back to work he had a pronounced limp; He was eventually sacked because he could not pick orders quick enough.
No Accident solicitors advertising in those days!
There is a very good reason for doing these things; in my previous occupation I have witnessed some horrendous accidents because people decided not take something seriously and do their own thing.
Like the fork truck driver who got a splash of battery acid in his eye because he wasn’t wearing the goggles provided for him when filling up the batteries!
And I thought Lyndford Christie could run!
The general perception within companies is that Health & Safety is there to cause your working day a problem. It isn’t! it’s there to assist you through your day
in order that you can be there the next day!
Paul Clayton M.i.l.t (Director Xquisite Recruitment.)
Thanks Paul
It just goes to show that a little bit of forethought can save a catastrophe.
What was the cost to the company of that accident?
A lot more than £1800.00 I bet. Probably more than 10 times that amount when all things are considered.