Helmets & HSE

Richard said:

A slightly worrying piece appears in Safety Express Jan/Feb 2006 (any
transcription errors mine, and I'm afraid I don't have any more info;
I was mailed a photocopy of the relevant page (7)):

<begin quote>
A farm manager has been fined UKP 200 with UKP 200 costs for not
wearing a helmet while riding a quad bike. Peter Rowcroft, who works
on the Haretop Estates, Simonburn, pleaded guilty to the offence of
failing to take reasonable care of himself while at work.

I imagine (and I've only driven a quad bike a couple of times) that in terms
of actual injury prevention, a neck brace would be at least as useful as a
helmet.
--
Ambrose

Richard said:

A slightly worrying piece appears in Safety Express Jan/Feb 2006 (any
transcription errors mine, and I'm afraid I don't have any more info; I
was mailed a photocopy of the relevant page (7)):

<begin quote>
A farm manager has been fined UKP 200 with UKP 200 costs for not wearing
a helmet while riding a quad bike. Peter Rowcroft, who works on the
Haretop Estates, Simonburn, pleaded guilty to the offence of failing to
take reasonable care of himself while at work.

Magistrates at Hexham were told that Mr Rowcroft had been warned by the
Health and Safety Executive a number of times about safety at work in
relation to quad bikes. Last April HSE inspector Dr Stephen Britton was
making routine inspections of farms in the area when he came across Mr
Rowcroft riding through Simonburn without a helmet.

Dr Britton told the court that while there was no requirement to wear a
helmet as far as the Road Traffic Act was concerned, in the HSE's
opinion people in a work position should. "A national survey by the HSE
shows that 51 per cent of drivers come off their quad bikes at some
stage," he said, "in the last nine years 21 drivers have been killed
and a high percentage of those were due to head injuries.

Source: The Journal.
<end quote>

That's ridiculous. I can quite understand the HSE insisting that helments
are made available to employees, or even that they insist that an
employer ensures [1] that employees use them, or even that they insist
that he wears one while actually on farmland, but they're overstepping the
mark by insisting that he wears one on public roads [2] for which helmet laws
already apply (in the sense that there is no requirement).

[1] "Ensures" for the usual values of ensures.
[2] I assume if he was "riding through Simonburn" he was on a road.

--
Nobby

The bit I find most intriguing is this:
Mr Rowcroft had been warned by the
Health and Safety Executive a number of times about safety at work in
relation to quad bikes. Last April HSE inspector Dr Stephen Britton
was

So he was a face to be spotted.I wonder why. Of course it is possible
that the hse doctor is a nutter, but the magistrate backed it with a
fine that on another day he might have applied to a menace of a
careless driver.
TerryJ

Nobody Here said:

Quoted message said:

<begin quote>
Magistrates at Hexham were told that Mr Rowcroft had been warned by the
Health and Safety Executive a number of times about safety at work in
relation to quad bikes. Last April HSE inspector Dr Stephen Britton was
making routine inspections of farms in the area when he came across Mr
Rowcroft riding through Simonburn without a helmet.

<end quote>

That's ridiculous. I can quite understand the HSE insisting that helments
are made available to employees, or even that they insist that an
employer ensures [1] that employees use them, or even that they insist
that he wears one while actually on farmland, but they're overstepping the
mark by insisting that he wears one on public roads [2] for which helmet laws
already apply (in the sense that there is no requirement).

[1] "Ensures" for the usual values of ensures.
[2] I assume if he was "riding through Simonburn" he was on a road.

Hummm, HSE dealing with work related use of quad, even on road,

could well using standard risk assessment methods find the need

for a helmet to be worn, Quad for pleasure on road is different

from work...

Yes I'm a safety rep, so I can see where the HSE is coming from.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The bit I find most intriguing is this:
Mr Rowcroft had been warned by the
Health and Safety Executive a number of times about safety at work in
relation to quad bikes. Last April HSE inspector Dr Stephen Britton
was

So he was a face to be spotted.I wonder why. Of course it is possible
that the hse doctor is a nutter, but the magistrate backed it with a
fine that on another day he might have applied to a menace of a
careless driver.
TerryJ

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act. There is no difference in the eyes
of the HSE in this case to that of a bricklayer refusing to wear a safety
helmet on a building site. You can not pick and choose the laws you want to
abide by and those you don't.

Cliff

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:33:44 -0000 someone who may be "Cliff"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Which the so-called Health and Safety Executive have run miles from
in order to avoid applying it to roads. Were they to do so all roads
would be closed at once.

Thus it is clear that this bod has picked on the rider for some
reason and the courts have backed the bod up.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

badger said:

Nobody Here said:

Quoted message said:

<begin quote>
Magistrates at Hexham were told that Mr Rowcroft had been warned by the
Health and Safety Executive a number of times about safety at work in
relation to quad bikes. Last April HSE inspector Dr Stephen Britton was
making routine inspections of farms in the area when he came across Mr
Rowcroft riding through Simonburn without a helmet.

<end quote>

That's ridiculous. I can quite understand the HSE insisting that helments
are made available to employees, or even that they insist that an
employer ensures [1] that employees use them, or even that they insist
that he wears one while actually on farmland, but they're overstepping the
mark by insisting that he wears one on public roads [2] for which helmet laws
already apply (in the sense that there is no requirement).

[1] "Ensures" for the usual values of ensures.
[2] I assume if he was "riding through Simonburn" he was on a road.

Hummm, HSE dealing with work related use of quad, even on road,
could well using standard risk assessment methods find the need
for a helmet to be worn, Quad for pleasure on road is different
from work...

No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Quoted message said:

Yes I'm a safety rep, so I can see where the HSE is coming from.

Well, I'm an employer. As an employer, I provide safety information,
equipment, training, encouragement, and procedures. If I fail to
provide those things, I'm happy that the HSE steps in and prosecutes
*me* because of my failure to protect my employees. If I fail to
enforce the use of the equipment, training or procedures, and that
failure endangers anyone else, I'm also happy that *I* and the
employee will be prosecuted.

If one of my employees endangers themself, and only themself,
however, by failing to observe their training, or my procedures,
or by not using the euqipment I provide, that's their problem. It
should not be a matter for the HSE to prosecute them. Me, perhaps,
for not being insistent enough, but not them.

--
Nobby

Nobody Here said:

No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Legally, I think you're wrong. You have a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the safety of yourself at work (as well as
that of your co-workers).

Quoted message said:

If one of my employees endangers themself, and only themself,
however, by failing to observe their training, or my procedures,
or by not using the euqipment I provide, that's their problem.

Indeed, and part of 'their problem' is that they are not complying
with their legal duties.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Nobody Here said:

No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Legally, I think you're wrong. You have a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the safety of yourself at work (as well as
that of your co-workers).

Yes, I understand that, but I don't think you should have to have *more*
of a duty towards yourself at work than you do otherwise. If you don't
need to wear a helmet as a private individual doing the same activity,
you shouldn't bew required to wear one as part of your job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If one of my employees endangers themself, and only themself,
however, by failing to observe their training, or my procedures,
or by not using the euqipment I provide, that's their problem.

Indeed, and part of 'their problem' is that they are not complying
with their legal duties.

And in this case the law says they need not wear a helmet. They have a
"legal duty" not to speed, for example, (if that applies to quad bikes)
wether or not they're at work or not or the public road. The police
can prosecure that irrespective of wether or not the individual is at
work or not. In this case the police would not prosecute for not wearing
a helmet, no offence has taken place.

I do understand that the HSE was within it's right to prosecute - I'm
not arguing against that. I am arguing that the HSE is sometimes too
vigorous. If I as an amployer provide all the training and equipment
I can (as much or more than is required by the HSE), and an individual
decides not to follow that training or use the equipment, I think that
so long as it's only he individual who will suffer as a result of their
not following the rules tehn that's their problem. If their actions
might affect others' health and safety, then yes, either or both he
and I should be prosecuted. If their actions might affect my
profitability, for example, I can deal with that through diciplinary
means withing the workplace. I do not need or want the HSE to
prosecute someone who is otherwise acting within the law and is not
likely to harm anyone else. People should be able to make their own
choises in that circumstance, as they do in all other aspects of their
life. After all, we're not a nanny state, are we??

--
Nobby

Cliff said:

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act. There is no difference in the eyes
of the HSE in this case to that of a bricklayer refusing to wear a safety
helmet on a building site. You can not pick and choose the laws you want to
abide by and those you don't.

But wearing a helmet on a quad bike on the road is /not/ a legal
requirement.

R.

Nobody Here said:

Ian Smith said:

Nobody Here said:

No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Legally, I think you're wrong. You have a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the safety of yourself at work (as well as
that of your co-workers).

Yes, I understand that, but I don't think you should have to have *more*
of a duty towards yourself at work than you do otherwise. If you don't
need to wear a helmet as a private individual doing the same activity,
you shouldn't bew required to wear one as part of your job.

I disagree. Until there is a 'Health & Safety Outside Work Etc Act",
the situation at home will always be different. If I'm using an angle
grinder or router at home, I would be very sensible to wear dust mask,
goggles and ear defenders. If I was using the same at work, I would be
required by the HASAWEtcA to wear the protective equipment. The HSE bod
had given the chap his opinion that a helmet should be worn. The chap
was therefore not very clever in continuing to ignore this 'advice'.

TL

The Luggage said:

Nobody Here said:

Ian Smith said:

On 10 Jan 2006 00:17:58 GMT, Nobody Here <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
> training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
> acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
> the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
> safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
> on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Legally, I think you're wrong. You have a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the safety of yourself at work (as well as
that of your co-workers).

Yes, I understand that, but I don't think you should have to have *more*
of a duty towards yourself at work than you do otherwise. If you don't
need to wear a helmet as a private individual doing the same activity,
you shouldn't bew required to wear one as part of your job.

I disagree. Until there is a 'Health & Safety Outside Work Etc Act",
the situation at home will always be different. If I'm using an angle
grinder or router at home, I would be very sensible to wear dust mask,
goggles and ear defenders. If I was using the same at work, I would be
required by the HASAWEtcA to wear the protective equipment. The HSE bod
had given the chap his opinion that a helmet should be worn. The chap
was therefore not very clever in continuing to ignore this 'advice'.

Yes, I know that that *is* the case, but what I'm trying to say is that
I don't believe it *should be* the case. Employers should be mandated
to provide safety equipment and training to some level at least as good
as that required by the HSE, but employees should have some degree of
discretion about what they themselves want to do.

Take the "accepted wisdom" that wearing cycle helmets provides a safer
riding experience. If an employer, or the HSE, madated doing so when
cycling as part of your job, would you be willing to do so? Many here
would refuse, because there is a body of opinion that says that wearing
a cycle helment at best does nothing for your safety and at worst
makes you less safe. The same argument sometimes applies in other
aspects of workplace safety, but there is often no leeway for an employee
to judge to ignore a set of proscribed rules. I believe that an
employee (but not an employer) should have the discretion to apply
or disregard safety proscriptions so long as doing so will only
affect themselves (and they otherwise don't break laws, etc).

In the case in question, it's quite clear that the only person directly
affected is the quad bike rider, and in this case I do not believe that
the HSE should have any involvement.

Of course as others have implied there might be more to the story than
appeared in print.

--
Nobby

Cliff said:

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act. There is no difference in the eyes
of the HSE in this case to that of a bricklayer refusing to wear a safety
helmet on a building site. You can not pick and choose the laws you want to
abide by and those you don't.

Yes there is - there's a specific, explicit, legal duty for the
bricklayer to wear the hard-hat, under the Construction (Head
Protection) Regulations 1989. They apply to building operations and
works of engineering construction. So far as I am aware, no such duty
applies to teh quad-bike-rider.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Nobody Here said:

Ian Smith said:

Nobody Here said:

No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Legally, I think you're wrong. You have a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the safety of yourself at work (as well as
that of your co-workers).

Yes, I understand that, but I don't think you should have to have *more*
of a duty towards yourself at work than you do otherwise. If you don't
need to wear a helmet as a private individual doing the same activity,
you shouldn't bew required to wear one as part of your job.

Whether you *should* or not, the fact remains that you *do*.

Quoted message said:

I do understand that the HSE was within it's right to prosecute - I'm
not arguing against that. I am arguing that the HSE is sometimes too
vigorous. If I as an amployer provide all the training and equipment
I can (as much or more than is required by the HSE), and an individual
decides not to follow that training or use the equipment, I think that
so long as it's only he individual who will suffer as a result of their
not following the rules tehn that's their problem. If their actions
might affect others' health and safety, then yes, either or both he
and I should be prosecuted. If their actions might affect my
profitability, for example, I can deal with that through diciplinary
means withing the workplace. I do not need or want the HSE to
prosecute someone who is otherwise acting within the law and is not
likely to harm anyone else. People should be able to make their own
choises in that circumstance, as they do in all other aspects of their
life. After all, we're not a nanny state, are we??

So you're campaigning for a relaxation of the H&SAW act?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Nobody Here said:

Ian Smith said:

On 10 Jan 2006 00:17:58 GMT, Nobody Here <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> No, it isn't, unless the employer withholds safety equipment, or
> training. If an employee refuses to use them, and is otherwise
> acting within the law, the HSE should have no further interest in
> the matter unless that failure adversely affects the health and
> safety of anyone else. It's unlikely that failure to wear a helmet
> on a quad bike will affect anyone other than yourself.

Legally, I think you're wrong. You have a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to protect the safety of yourself at work (as well as
that of your co-workers).

Yes, I understand that, but I don't think you should have to have *more*
of a duty towards yourself at work than you do otherwise. If you don't
need to wear a helmet as a private individual doing the same activity,
you shouldn't bew required to wear one as part of your job.

Whether you *should* or not, the fact remains that you *do*.

Quoted message said:

I do understand that the HSE was within it's right to prosecute - I'm
not arguing against that. I am arguing that the HSE is sometimes too
vigorous. If I as an amployer provide all the training and equipment
I can (as much or more than is required by the HSE), and an individual
decides not to follow that training or use the equipment, I think that
so long as it's only he individual who will suffer as a result of their
not following the rules tehn that's their problem. If their actions
might affect others' health and safety, then yes, either or both he
and I should be prosecuted. If their actions might affect my
profitability, for example, I can deal with that through diciplinary
means withing the workplace. I do not need or want the HSE to
prosecute someone who is otherwise acting within the law and is not
likely to harm anyone else. People should be able to make their own
choises in that circumstance, as they do in all other aspects of their
life. After all, we're not a nanny state, are we??

So you're campaigning for a relaxation of the H&SAW act?

Well I'm not campaining for anything as such, but I do believe that
there is a line to be drawn between government proscribing and
individuals taking responsibility for their own safety. I think that
line's drawn too far over towards proscription, and often what's
proscribed is short sighted, too restrictive for both employers and
employees, or just plain wrong.

On the other hand, I fully appreciate that H&S legislation needs to be
strong to protect employees from their employer's laxity or ignorance.
I consider myself a "good" employer, because consideration for my
employees is foremost in *all* of my business decisions, and also
I work in a professional environment where everyone is fully aware
of H&S issues (partly because it's a big consideration for our end
products). However, there are a lot of operations where employers
don't give a toss at worst or are ignorant at best. If it were up
to me, I would probably "relax the H&SAW act" but I'd make the
penalties much more severe for employers or employees who endanger
others. And I do mean *much*.

--
Nobby