People enter the quad bike ROPS debate

A week on from Australia’s The Weekly Times using its front page to open a debate about roll over protection structures (ROPS), the debate has continued in the letters and op-ed pages of The Weekly Times.

Dr Yossi Berger of the Australian Workers Union asks the valid question in his opinion piece – should all the responsibility for quad bike incidents be placed on riders or can manufacturers do better?  If injuries and deaths on quad bikes continue to occur after rider-focused control measures have been advocated and encouraged for many years, isn’t it time to look at more than PPE and administrative controls?  As Albert Einstein is alleged to have said:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Rhys Griffiths of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries says in his piece that the quad bike manufacturers are frustrated that low-cost, in safety-speak, administrative controls are not being applied by riders or endorsed by safety regulators.  The control measures recommended are likely to have positive safety impacts but these could be improved further by the integration of a ROPS.  However Griffiths says that :

“Roll Over Protection Systems are not the answer”.

I agree but safety is rarely about “the” answer.  Better outcomes are mostly achieved by a combination of controls that can accommodate the varying work characteristics. Continue reading “People enter the quad bike ROPS debate”

Evidence on the need for safe job design

One reader has provided an example of recent research that supports the previous SafetyAtWorkBlog article on the importance of quality and safety in job creation.

In the March 2011 online edition of the Occupational & Environmental Medicine journal, Australian researchers have analysed data concerning “the psychosocial quality of work”.  According to an accompanying media release (not available online yet) they found that

“The impact on mental health of a badly paid, poorly supported, or short term job can be as harmful as no job at all…” Continue reading “Evidence on the need for safe job design”

New quad bike research and practical safety guidance

A major Australian rural newspaper, The Weekly Times, has devoted its front page to an article on rollover protective devices on quad bikes.   It has taken as the base new information released by the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (ACAHS) through a media release. The new policy paper and the supporting Practical Management Guide acknowledge new research from independent engineers that has finally questioned the established knowledge base on the safety of quad bikes.

ACAHS has come to a position where it states:

“Farmers and other owners of quad bikes should be encouraged to fit suitably tested protective devices to reduce death and serious injury from rollovers.” Continue reading “New quad bike research and practical safety guidance”

NZ releases new guidelines on quad bike safety

Any new OHS guidelines from regulators important to read and consider when implementing safety interventions.   New Zealand’s Department of Labour (DoL) has released new guidelines for the use of quad bikes in workplaces, predominantly, farms.

Quad bike manufacturers are strong advocates of “active riding” techniques as an important safety practice. The new guidelines support this position.

Regular readers will be aware that there are engineering controls for rollovers of quad bikes where “active riding” is an administrative control of rollovers. The engineering control is primarily a rollover protective structure (ROPS). The difference between the two control measures is significant as the engineering controls are considered to be a higher order, or more effective, control in the hierarchy of controls advocated by OHS regulators and professionals around the world.

The NZ DoL guidelines make reference to ROPS but only as a text box because the evidence on ROPS remains contentious. Continue reading “NZ releases new guidelines on quad bike safety”

LiquidKeyboard may have substantial ergonomic benefits

As an iPad user for well over 6 months, the iPad is a terrific device for reading but it is not the best for writing.  This may be due to having typed since the age of 14 on everything from a solid old Remington typewriter to an IBM golf ball electric typewriter and various keyboards over the decades.  Typing on glass is possible but the limited keyboard size on the iPad is a struggle.  But that struggle may be replaced by an even greater challenge.

The iPad, and many other devices, are bound by a QWERTY keyboard.  Others have argued that the QWERTY layout is outdated but it is possible to produce a presentable email holding an iPad in one hand and typing with the other.  It is likely that , over a short period of time, the shortcomings of that arrangement will create ergonomic problems.

Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have not introduced an alternative to the QWERTY keyboard but rather tweaked it into a new layout.  LiquidKeyboard is the system and, in short

  • “A new keyboard that makes it easier to type on touch screen devices has been invented
  • LiquidKeyboard enables people to use both hands in typing in the traditional way
  • As soon as your first four fingers touch the surface – in one fluid motion – an entire keyboard is constructed using the QWERTY format”

As with many innovations, productivity is the main motivation or it may be that productivity is the language needed to gain broad media attention but the potential ergonomic benefits are just as interesting.   If ergonomics is “the science of designing the workplace environment to fit the user” then the ergonomic benefits of LiquidKeyboard are self-evident.  Just because the  use of  a virtual keyboard has not identified any hazards yet does not mean that research into alternative, more ergonomic methods is not warranted.  The forethought of Christian Sax and other researchers is to be applauded.

Kevin Jones

Laboratory safety begins with design

Laboratory safety is often treated as a specialist area of occupational safety due to the potential harm from the material being handled but also because the laboratories often exist in universities, isolated work environments in many ways.  Kansas State University (KSU) is obviously very proud of its Biosecurity Research Institute that, it claims, has considered all elements of safety in all stages of construction and operation.

A researcher works with materials in a biosafety cabinet in the Biosecurity Research Institute at Kansas State University. A biosafety cabinet is a safety enclosure that uses HEPA filters and directional airflow to contain pathogens.

The article that KSU has released on line is a little promotional in tone but there is enough information in it to illustrate the high level of planning that was given to the project.  There may not be much new information for those already involved in laboratory safety but it is a useful example of the need for preparatory work in establishing a safe working environment that also ensures product integrity.

Kevin Jones

Independent research into quad bike ROPS safety

In early 2009, Australian engineer, Shane Richardson, completed his thesis into the “Performance Criteria For Effective Structural Rollover Protective Systems For Light Passenger Vehicles”.  Part of his thesis included an evaluation of the New Zealand Department of Labour’s ROPS guidelines for ATVs or quad bikes.

Richardson points out that the guidelines have strong similarities to the Australian Standard for protective Structures on Earth-moving Machinery (AS2294) although quad bikes may tipover or undergo a multi-directional tumble, the latter action is not one considered by AS 2294.  Richardson believed that the earth-moving machinery “origin” of many of the basic concepts and calculations in the NZ DoL guidelines made them useful but inadequate. Continue reading “Independent research into quad bike ROPS safety”

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd