Quad bike safety issues continue with no end in sight

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been following the discussions about safety of all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes for some time.  This is because the use of these vehicles encapsulate so many of the issues that workplace safety needs to deal with:

  • Safe design
  • Personal protective equipment
  • Hierarchy of controls
  • The line between private activity and work activity
  • Personal responsibility
  • The “nanny state”
  • Regulatory safety guidance
  • Industry-based codes of practice

On 19 December 2010, the New Zealand Sunday Star Times ran a feature article on quad bikes, written by Amanda Cropp (I can’t find the article online but please send a link if you can) entitled “Risky Business”.  The article is a fair summation of many of the perspectives and attitudes to quad bike safety.

For those readers who like statistics, Cropp writes that

“The annual ACC [Accident Compensation Corporation] bill for quad bike-related injuries is around $7 million, and Hobbs’ claim was among 2533 in 2009, a sizeable increase on the 457 new claims accepted in 2000.” [link added] Continue reading “Quad bike safety issues continue with no end in sight”

Conkers and risk assessments

In September 2007, UK’s Health & Safety Executive produced a safety poster on the myth of students wearing safety goggles while playing conkers.  HSE did not demystify the issue by examining the origin of the myth and only chose to debunk the myth.

The February 2011 edition of the Fortean Times provides a little more detail on the origin of the myth in its “mythconceptions” column.  It reports on primary school teacher, Shaun Halfpenny’s, claim about starting the myth.  Continue reading “Conkers and risk assessments”

Silly safety memes, knowledge dumps, body of knowledge and accreditation.

Kevin Jones’s piece on the HSE dilemma with odd reporting of OH&S issues (silly stuff like the popular media reporting HSE banning toothpicks) got me thinkin’ about how silly attitudes about OH&S requirements come about.  And maybe there is something to learn from this when thinking about the OH&S body of knowledge and accreditation system.

Clearly the HSE has every reason to be disturbed by the tone that is developing about OH&S in the UK.  A contemptuous tone has a knock-on effect that undermines confidence in OH&S generally.

But how does this come about in the first place? Are they spontaneous, or is it a case of one ill-considered bit of advice spreading as a meme?[1] And irrespective of the cause, why are these silly safety memes embraced so readily?

Is it because there are enough people more than happy to join in on denigrating OH&S because they simply have had enough of overly complex or unrealistic obligations?  Or maybe the average punter has tired of high-sounding OH&S objectives that don’t turn real in a way that matters to them? Continue reading “Silly safety memes, knowledge dumps, body of knowledge and accreditation.”

Hard copy OHS publications

Printing is expensive and the internet has provided an attractive alternative and low-cost distribution network that particularly suits OHS information.  The precursor to the SafetyAtWorkBlog, the Safety AT WORK magazine, was distributed as a PDF magazine only and online for years.  Publishing online allows for all the printing costs to be outsourced to the subscribers or readers, or at least those who choose to print guidances, alerts, etc.

But it is reasonable to expect that during a national Workplace Safety Week, hard copies of government OHS guidances should be made available to those people who register or attend government-sponsored events, particularly if that event is a (“soft”) launch of a new guidance.

Today I attended a WorkSafe Victoria seminar where a panel of safety experts discussed government OHS requirements as they relate to procurement.  The seminar was also a launch of the new WorkSafe guide Health and safety in construction procurement – A handbook for the public sector No hard copies were available in the seminar for participants.  This raised the odd situation where it was possible to attend a seminar on a new guidance, listen to a WorkSafe representative talk about the guidance, listen to three panelists praise the guide but not have a copy of the guide. Continue reading “Hard copy OHS publications”

Avoiding the OHS training dead-end

[Ed: There has been a terrific response to Col Finie’s post on training and OHS qualifications both on and off the SafetyAtWorkBlog.  Col provides a further article below]
Brett’s point is critical for mine.

[“I reiterate my point that practical experience is the key, because if you do not use that “core body of knowledge” on a regular basis, then you will most likely forget what you have learned, or at a minimum it may become redundant.”]

It goes to the heart of what has to drive the core body of knowledge and accreditation.

Every qualification is no more (or less) than a catalyst for future learning.  I heard someone mention there is a rule of thumb that any qualification, at any level, becomes redundant within 5 years after completing it if it isn’t supplemented with on-going learning.

Clearly the question of a minimum qualification to start the passage of on-going learning has to be informed by the complex thing of describing a core body of knowledge.  A complex project can only be dealt with properly by dividing into discrete bunches of key issues.  And ideally, that division should be done with as few preconceived ideas as possible.

For mine I think there have been some preconceived ideas brought to the project table that look like they are sending the project into a “solutions cul-de-sac”.  Continue reading “Avoiding the OHS training dead-end”

What academic qualifications are needed to be a safety professional?

The Safety Institute of Australia has been investigating the development of a “core body of knowledge” for OHS in Australia for some years.  Recently the institute released a discussion paper on the proposed accreditation idea for OH&S professionals.  There is some similarity to moves in other countries such as the UK and to the situation in Canada.  Regular contributor Col Finnie comments below:

“……after a read of [the SIA document I] got very confused.   As far as I can see the accreditation thing seems to not paying any regard to the VET (vocational education) sector, and all the OH&S related quals.   Before I make any comment on the proposed accreditation paper I thought I should look for some clarification from people who are more aware of the nitty gritty.  To that end I posted a topic on the SIA Educators forum [members only].   But to reach a bigger audience I have provided a reproduction of the SIA member’s forum post here.

It’s part question, part observation of what seems to be an anomaly in the way the accreditation conversation seems to be heading.  I’m keen to see what you people reckon.   Continue reading “What academic qualifications are needed to be a safety professional?”

Sticking to the big picture

I had cause to give some students an idea of how well OH&S is doing in Oz.  The aim was to give these people some big picture numbers that might help them counter the general view that OH&S is over-done, crippled with nanny state perspectives etc etc.

Initially I slipped into the mode we tend to use in OH&S-World of fiddling about with comparisons: looking at innumerable qualifiers to get a tight comparison, massaging the numbers endlessly.  Eventually I realised it just didn’t cut it.  Statistics over-worked just end up producing a mushy result. And if there is one thing people don’t need from OH&S it’s mushy results.

So faced with this I decided to step back and think of a Big big Picture bunch of numbers. Continue reading “Sticking to the big picture”

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