The Hierarchy of Controls has some questionable OHS applications to psychosocial hazards but it applies very well to “traditional” hazards, those involving plant. The Hierarchy also emphasizes that the first step in any hazard control is to consider whether the hazard can be eliminated. But what happens when the designers of equipment and plant know that a design can be made safer but do nothing to improve it?
For almost two decades some Australian OHS regulators have provided rebates to farmers to fit roll over protective structures (ROPS) to tractors to prevent deaths and injuries to the drivers from rollover or flips. In 2009, one would be hard pressed to find a tractor that does not have its safety features emphasised as a sales benefit. ROPS on tractors have been compulsory since 1998 in most States.
On 17 November 2009, Workplace Standards Tasmania issued a safety alert which, like the New Zealand ATV guidelines, advocates helmets and not ROPS even though OHS legislative principles say that elimination of hazards is the aim. The Tasmanian safety alert outlines the reasons for the safety alert
“Recent information shows there are, on average, 15 fatalities a year associated with using quad bikes in the Australian rural industry sector. Many more people are injured.
A recent coronial inquest into seven fatal incidents involving quad bikes (two in Tasmania and five in Victoria) has sparked a renewed call for improved safety on quad bikes.
As a result, Workplace Standards Tasmania has adopted a policy of zero tolerance of breaches of duty of care responsibilities with quad bikes.”
“Zero tolerance of breaches of duty”? The Tasmanian OHS Act places this duty on the designers of plant
(1) A person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any plant or structure for use at a workplace must so far as is reasonably practicable –
(a) ensure that the design and construction of the plant or structure is such that persons who use the plant or structure properly are not, in doing so, exposed to risks to their health and safety;…..
SafetyAtWorkBlog is awaiting comments from Workplace Standards Tasmania on the elimination of ATV rollover hazards.
As a terminological aside, there is a growing movement to rename All Terrain Vehicles as Quad Bikes because the fatality and injury data clearly shows that the vehicles cannot be driven in “all terrains”.
Five recent fatalities involving quad bikes, mentioned in the safety alert, should spark some investigation into whether the design of the plant contributed in any way to the fatalities. Yet the safety alert makes no mention of design other than, tenuously, encouraging farmers to make sure
“…your quad bike is properly maintained and used according to the manufacturer’s specifications.”
This is a reasonable statement but if it was possible to make the vehicle safer, to save one’s own life and livelihood, by adding a ROPS, why wouldn’t you?
The manufacturer’s specifications are certain to be suitable to that quad bike but what if the quad bike design is itself not “fit for purpose”? Plenty of other machines and vehicles are being redesigned to accommodate poor or inappropriate driver behaviour. What makes quad bike so sacrosanct?
Victoria had a major opportunity for reform in this area through a parliamentary inquiry into farm deaths and injuries in August 2005. Many farm safety advocates had high hopes for major change on ATV safety but design changes were not recommended.
According to the farm safety report
“Some witnesses suggested that roll over protection structures for ATVs should be made compulsory. Others, particularly representatives on behalf of the ATV industry, argued that fitting of a roll over protective structure to an ATV would adversely affect the handling and utility characteristics of these vehicles.”
“…that, in the event of an ATV accident, “if the occupant is adequately restrained [with a suitable safety harness] within a protective roll over structure, the severity of [injuries caused during] the roll over event is dramatically reduced.”
“To the Committee’s knowledge, there is no existing example of a roll over protective structure device that satisfies requirements for driver protection without substantially reducing the handling characteristics of ATVs. This report cannot, based on available evidence, make any recommendations concerning the fitting of roll over protective structures to ATVs.”
“The use of the “safe cell” technology offers a number of imaginative approaches as alternatives to traditional structures, particularly for smaller machinery, and should not be overlooked. Their contribution could be invaluable if relevant techniques were validated and became legally acceptable.”
“… it appears that the risk of using ATVs is significant, however there are some possible measures that could be put in place to reduce injuries, particularly those that are more severe and/or fatal. It seems that appropriate training is the most promising factor particularly because of the strong impact human behaviour has on the outcomes of the accidents.
In addition, the high risk for a fatal outcome when ATVs are rolled over, pinning the driver Reducing Fatalities in All-Terrain Vehicle Accidents in New Zealand underneath, suggests that further consideration and research is needed regarding the use of ROPS and/or any other measures that can prevent an ATV from rolling over.”
- The Quad Bar did not impede rider operation of the quad bike during normal operation (based on limited riding by the Chief Investigator).
- In low speed sideways roll over, the Quad Bar arrests the roll over and prevents the ATV from resting in a position that could trap and asphyxiate the rider.
- In higher speed sideways rollover, the Quad Bar impedes the roll over and prevents the ATV from resting in a position that could trap and asphyxiate the rider. In all tests the Quad Bar provided some clearance between the ground surface and the ATV seat so the rider would be unlikely to be trapped in this space.
- In all back flip tests, the Quad Bar arrested the back flip and the quad bike fell to one side.
- There were no conditions where the ATV with the Quad Bar fitted rested in a position that was more detrimental to rider safety than the ATV without protection.
The first award was for the Health & Safety Representative of the Year, won by Phyl Hilton. Hilton was clearly honoured by the award and in his acceptance speech acknowledged that good OHS laws are “socially progressive” – a position that is rarely heard outside of the union movement or from non-blue-collar workers. It is an element missing from many of the submission currently being received by Australian Government in its OHS law review.
The Best Solution to a Health and Safety Risk was given to Bendigo TAFE for a machine guarding solution. Guards have become an unfashionable hazard control solution and often now seem to rely on new technology. The chuck key guard was as hi-tech as an interlock device but one that the users of the lathes, almost all young workers, would not need any involvement with. If chuck key remains in the place, the guard is out of position and the machine cannot start. Simple is always the best.
and it would have been great to have a single device but the stacking option was particularly interesting. Many pub cellars are cramped and being able to stack beer kegs in a stable fashion is attractive, and sensible. The cross-support that is placed on top of each keg was, perhaps, the standout feature. One can almost see the staring at the top of the keg by the designers and the creative cogs turning. The best solutions always seem to be those where one asks “why didn’t I think of that?”
The attraction of this winner of Best Design for Workplace Safety is that the inventor has looked beyond PPE for jockeys to what a jockey is likely to hit when falling of a racehorse at speed.
