I've thought this before with Fathers for Justice and now again here: there seems to be a lamentable lack of thought given to fall-arrest precautions in modern protest.
And I've a sneaking feeling the hi-vis vests were only to get them through security.
Monday, 25 February 2008
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Corporate manslaughter confusion
The corporate killing law, due in six weeks odd, seems to be exciting lots of business activity, but not always for the right reasons it seems. I was talking to a safety product supplier yesterday who said his order books were full and that businesses were upping the level of employee protection "because all these directors are afraid they could end up in prison".
If that's so they needn't worry, the whole point of the law is that it takes away the need to find a guilty person who said "we'll save a bit of money if we stop buying fall-arrest harnesses" in front of witnesses.
If the authorities investigating a fatality find the health and safety structure, systems and training were inadequate the new law allows them to go after a whole organisation. Nobody will go to prison (not for corporate manslughter, anyway).
But what directors should be fretting about, and are in big busineses, is the level of fines that could be imposed if a corporate killing charge sticks. The sentencing guidelines for judges are still to be finalised, but the recommendation from the Sentencing Advisory Panel is for fines up to 10% of turnover, which is enough to make your average executive board's eyes water.
If that's so they needn't worry, the whole point of the law is that it takes away the need to find a guilty person who said "we'll save a bit of money if we stop buying fall-arrest harnesses" in front of witnesses.
If the authorities investigating a fatality find the health and safety structure, systems and training were inadequate the new law allows them to go after a whole organisation. Nobody will go to prison (not for corporate manslughter, anyway).
But what directors should be fretting about, and are in big busineses, is the level of fines that could be imposed if a corporate killing charge sticks. The sentencing guidelines for judges are still to be finalised, but the recommendation from the Sentencing Advisory Panel is for fines up to 10% of turnover, which is enough to make your average executive board's eyes water.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Refurbishment blitz, right or wrong?
Construction union UCATT is complaining that the HSE's heavily trailed blitz of spot checks on 1000 building refurbishment sites this month is a "sticking plaster" and that a flurry of one-off checks (especially when you've warned people you are coming) is no substitute for a full programme of inspections throughout the year.
I reckon the HSE would argue that with stretched resources, the drive to cut deaths and injuries in refurbishment (which accounted for more than half last year's construction fatalities) is best executed through an initiative that might scare small builders into cleaning up their act, on the basis they might be targeted this month.
I can see both sides. The refurb contractors know that even if they shouldn't risk bad behaviour this month, they face little risk of inspection if they drop standards again afterwards. But the HSE has to get maximum bang for its enforcement buck and just doesn't have the inspectors to get round even a big minority of construction sites.
I reckon the HSE would argue that with stretched resources, the drive to cut deaths and injuries in refurbishment (which accounted for more than half last year's construction fatalities) is best executed through an initiative that might scare small builders into cleaning up their act, on the basis they might be targeted this month.
I can see both sides. The refurb contractors know that even if they shouldn't risk bad behaviour this month, they face little risk of inspection if they drop standards again afterwards. But the HSE has to get maximum bang for its enforcement buck and just doesn't have the inspectors to get round even a big minority of construction sites.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Health and safety defended
I realise that after the last posting this blog risks becoming a listings guide to BBC radio after the fact, but all i do when i'm not at work is sit in a darkened room with a transistor and biscuits, and besides Radio 4 does seem to have the closest thing to a media backlash against the health-and-safety-gone-mad frothings of Jeremy Clarkson that we are going to get. Some comfort there.
From the News Quiz last Friday :
Sandy Toksvig: Andy, where were tossers tied up in red tape?
Andy Hamilton: This is a health and safety story from the Daily Telegraph, on its health and safety page. And like all health and safety safety stories, when you read the fine print it isn't a health and safety story, but the spin the papers put on it was that a pancake tossing race in Rippon had to be ditched because of health and safety fears. And you can see their point, frying pans can inflict horrendous injuries - you just have to look at Tom and Jerry. But I think it was as much a problem that they had to close roads, and I suspect people sat down and said "Shall we do the pancake race?" "No, it's bollocks. We only do it for the tourists, and it's February."
Phil Hammond: Surprisingly, I feel quite sorry for the Health and Safety Executive, because they were contacted and they hadn't said anything about it at all. It's the catch-all excuse isn't it? "I'd love to marry you darling, but health and safety" Or "I'd love your mother to move in with us, but health and safety".
From the News Quiz last Friday :
Sandy Toksvig: Andy, where were tossers tied up in red tape?
Andy Hamilton: This is a health and safety story from the Daily Telegraph, on its health and safety page. And like all health and safety safety stories, when you read the fine print it isn't a health and safety story, but the spin the papers put on it was that a pancake tossing race in Rippon had to be ditched because of health and safety fears. And you can see their point, frying pans can inflict horrendous injuries - you just have to look at Tom and Jerry. But I think it was as much a problem that they had to close roads, and I suspect people sat down and said "Shall we do the pancake race?" "No, it's bollocks. We only do it for the tourists, and it's February."
Phil Hammond: Surprisingly, I feel quite sorry for the Health and Safety Executive, because they were contacted and they hadn't said anything about it at all. It's the catch-all excuse isn't it? "I'd love to marry you darling, but health and safety" Or "I'd love your mother to move in with us, but health and safety".
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Rail maintenance falling short?
There was a good programme on BBC Radio 4 this week investigating Network Rail's track maintenance and inspection procedures
After the Grayrigg derailment in February last year, NetworkRail's own investigation highlighted problems with track inspection teams missing some defects and finding others, only for nothing to happen when they reported them. Network Rail insisted these failings were local to Grayrigg.
But the BBC has got hold of an unpublished report by the Railway Inspectorate which carried out its own investigation into track inspection and maintenance across the UK after the derailment.
The report talks about "the resource of track gangs" being stretched further and further by limited resources, which meant that inexperienced staff end up patrolling track, and that there's a risk of defects going undetected. The inspectorate issued a formal notice to Network Rail to improve track patrolling system by end of March this year.
Network Rail's chief exec denies there is a general problem with the patrolling system resting on the fact that HMRI's report says the "indicative" of systemic failings rather than an stating it as absolute certainty.
His argument isn't supported by reports by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch into three derailments in late 2006 near Waterloo and Epsom (which weren't widely reported because they were at low speed and no-one was injured), which also highlight as causes inadequate inspection procedures and fatigue among overworked track patrollers.
The programme suggests that if the problem is national rather than local, it may be down to Network Rail's maintenance budget cuts which are running at 8% a year under the direction of the Office of Rail Regulation, which is economic regulator for the industry but also took over responsibility for rail safety from the HSE in 2006.
It's worth a listen and will be available on the BBC Radio website till 12 January
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml - go to File on 4. The material on track safety starts about 15 mins in, and handily the Radio 4 player has a "Fwd 15 mins" button.
After the Grayrigg derailment in February last year, NetworkRail's own investigation highlighted problems with track inspection teams missing some defects and finding others, only for nothing to happen when they reported them. Network Rail insisted these failings were local to Grayrigg.
But the BBC has got hold of an unpublished report by the Railway Inspectorate which carried out its own investigation into track inspection and maintenance across the UK after the derailment.
The report talks about "the resource of track gangs" being stretched further and further by limited resources, which meant that inexperienced staff end up patrolling track, and that there's a risk of defects going undetected. The inspectorate issued a formal notice to Network Rail to improve track patrolling system by end of March this year.
Network Rail's chief exec denies there is a general problem with the patrolling system resting on the fact that HMRI's report says the "indicative" of systemic failings rather than an stating it as absolute certainty.
His argument isn't supported by reports by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch into three derailments in late 2006 near Waterloo and Epsom (which weren't widely reported because they were at low speed and no-one was injured), which also highlight as causes inadequate inspection procedures and fatigue among overworked track patrollers.
The programme suggests that if the problem is national rather than local, it may be down to Network Rail's maintenance budget cuts which are running at 8% a year under the direction of the Office of Rail Regulation, which is economic regulator for the industry but also took over responsibility for rail safety from the HSE in 2006.
It's worth a listen and will be available on the BBC Radio website till 12 January
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml - go to File on 4. The material on track safety starts about 15 mins in, and handily the Radio 4 player has a "Fwd 15 mins" button.
Monday, 4 February 2008
Hans Monderman 1945-2008
A quick word in honour of Hans Monderman who died last month aged 62. He was a pioneer of sensible risk in road safety in the Netherlands, going against the orthodoxy that pedestrians and vehicles have to be separated at all costs and that straightening the raods and putting up lots of speed limit signs was what made the roads safer.
Monderman showed that drivers responded to less strict direction (fewer traffic lights and road markings for instance) by taking more responsibility themselves and driving more attentively. His idea of the "naked street" where drivers negotiate with each other and pedestrians has begun to influence policy here as well as elsewhere in Europe, simply because it improves road safety.
Monderman showed that drivers responded to less strict direction (fewer traffic lights and road markings for instance) by taking more responsibility themselves and driving more attentively. His idea of the "naked street" where drivers negotiate with each other and pedestrians has begun to influence policy here as well as elsewhere in Europe, simply because it improves road safety.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)