Edge protection

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not suggesting anything like that. Pavements are generally no
higher than 9 inches.

Thats about right.

Quoted message said:

I understand protection is required for heights of over two metres in industry.

If your going to troll, at least ensure your are up to date.

The height limit has gone.

The work at height regulations efectivly defined 'work at height'
as a place is where a person could be injured falling from it. Thus if
you could fall from the pavement into the road and be injured, the work
at height regulations now apply.

I don't think you're right somehow. They may have taken away the
height limit but I doubt that working on a pavement would be
considered as "working at height".

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Quoted message said:

I don't think you're right somehow. They may have taken away the
height limit but I doubt that working on a pavement would be
considered as "working at height".

A direct quote from the Work at Height regulations 2005;

"work at height" means -

(a) work in any place, including a place at or below ground level;

(b) obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except
by a staircase in a permanent workplace,

where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury;

Quoted message said:

It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in
industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers

Those working as instructors or leaders in the outdoors are excluded
from the requirements of Work at Height regulations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think you're right somehow. They may have taken away the
height limit but I doubt that working on a pavement would be
considered as "working at height".

A direct quote from the Work at Height regulations 2005;

"work at height" means -

(a) work in any place, including a place at or below ground level;

Exactly! But that means working at a height from ground level to
another level of height either above or below.

Quoted message said:

(b) obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except
by a staircase in a permanent workplace, where, if measures required by
these Regulations were not taken, a person could fall a distance liable to
cause personal injury.

Yes, but try phoning the HSE and ask them if that applies to
pavements.

I can guess what they will say :-))

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems an anomaly that under health and safety legislation in
industry roof edge protection is mandatory for workers

Those working as instructors or leaders in the outdoors are excluded
from the requirements of Work at Height regulations.

Why should they be?

That's my very point.

There's an anomaly that needs correcting.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those working as instructors or leaders in the outdoors are excluded
from the requirements of Work at Height regulations.

Why should they be?

That's my very point.

So if I illustrate why outdoor instructors are excluded from the
requirements then you'll acknowledge the point and stop posting?
Excellent!

The reason why they are exempted is that outdoor instruction will, at
times, necessarily take place in exposed situations where edge
protection would be both impractical and undesirable for those taking
part. People taking part in these activities acknowledge, and often
desire, the element of risk involved, and to mitigate that risk would
be to defeat the purpose of being there in the first instance. And for
you, having made it clear that you don't take part in such activities,
to attempt to impose your personal risk assessment on others is absurd,
selfish and arrogant.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't imagine your response to this will be
'fair enough, I won't say anything more on the subject,' which will
just confirm my opinion stated above.

Colin

Colin MacDonald said:

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't imagine your response to this will be
'fair enough, I won't say anything more on the subject,' which will
just confirm my opinion stated above.

Having come to the conclusion that your assessment is spot on, my
response to Angus has been to introduce his name to Mr. Killfile.

I think his posts are so obviously clueless poison that they don't need
responding to any more.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <[email hidden]>,
Colin MacDonald <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those working as instructors or leaders in the outdoors are excluded
from the requirements of Work at Height regulations.

Why should they be?

That's my very point.

So if I illustrate why outdoor instructors are excluded from the
requirements then you'll acknowledge the point and stop posting?
Excellent!

The reason why they are exempted is that outdoor instruction will, at
times, necessarily take place in exposed situations where edge
protection would be both impractical and undesirable for those taking
part. People taking part in these activities acknowledge, and often
desire, the element of risk involved, and to mitigate that risk would
be to defeat the purpose of being there in the first instance. And for
you, having made it clear that you don't take part in such activities,
to attempt to impose your personal risk assessment on others is absurd,
selfish and arrogant.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't imagine your response to this will be
'fair enough, I won't say anything more on the subject,' which will
just confirm my opinion stated above.

Note that, in another ng, Angus jas tried to impose his personal risk
assessment on others with regard to avian flu. It was as absurd and
ill-founded as this one. This comment of mine will doubtless stimulate
him to post it here, which will enable you to judge just how absurd it
is. If he does, bear in mind that Angus has specifically denied any
personal expertise in birds bird movements or avian flu. Just as, I
rather suspect, he has never been to Linn of Quoich.

There was also an interesting similarity, because in his assessment of
the risk of catching avian flu he was only warning people off bird
reserves owned by conservation organisations. In the case of the Linn of
Quoich, it should be noted that it is owned by another conservation
organisation of which Angus disapproves, namely the National Trust for
Scotland.

I do wonder whether if this fatal accident had occurred on publicly
owned land Angus would have posted his message.

--
Malcolm

Quoted message said:

Yes, but try phoning the HSE and ask them if that applies to
pavements.

Whether the reguilation applies to pavements (or not), is up to the
courts I would have thought.

Quoted message said:

Exactly! But that means working at a height from ground level to
another level of height either above or below.

No, the regulation uses the words 'any place' where a fall may cause
injury.

That there should be a differance in height between two places for the
regulation to apply is your invention.

It may well be that in the future the law is redefined to exclude falls
from level ground, but the law as it stands (?) at the moment seems
quite clear.

Quoted message said:

Why should they be?

Ring up the HSE and ask them ?

Quoted message said:

That's my very point.
There's an anomaly that needs correcting.

The excemption was introduced specifically after a long consultation
and review process.

Quoted message said:

No idea where these places are; nor would I particularly want to.

Thats good. You could not possibly afford the charges.

You are a sick little sod for trolling on this topic.. How do you live
with yourself.

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

AFAIK s13 of the The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (right to roam)
amended the 1957 & 1984 Occupier's Liability Acts to remove from landowners
the duty of care owed to visitors & tresspassers by those acts in respect of
"right to roam" land and other specified areas.

Wrong country

Richard Webb

Colin MacDonald said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those working as instructors or leaders in the outdoors are excluded
from the requirements of Work at Height regulations.

Why should they be?

That's my very point.

So if I illustrate why outdoor instructors are excluded from the
requirements then you'll acknowledge the point and stop posting?
Excellent!

Only if you can justify your claim.

Quoted message said:

The reason why they are exempted is that outdoor instruction will, at
times, necessarily take place in exposed situations where edge
protection would be both impractical and undesirable for those taking
part.

I'm quite sure many people in business to do with heights would say
the same and they're not inviting the public on to roof tops.

Quoted message said:

People taking part in these activities acknowledge, and often
desire, the element of risk involved, and to mitigate that risk would
be to defeat the purpose of being there in the first instance.

I'm pretty sure the child who fell into the river was not there for
the risk.

Quoted message said:

And for
you, having made it clear that you don't take part in such activities,
to attempt to impose your personal risk assessment on others is absurd,
selfish and arrogant.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the anomaly that exists and
suggesting that the public should be protected from heights just as
workers are. Why not?

Quoted message said:

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't imagine your response to this will be
'fair enough, I won't say anything more on the subject,' which will
just confirm my opinion stated above.

It confirms nothing.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Exactly! But that means working at a height from ground level to
another level of height either above or below.

No, the regulation uses the words 'any place' where a fall may cause
injury.

That there should be a differance in height between two places for the
regulation to apply is your invention.

Working at height means height between two places.

Quoted message said:

It may well be that in the future the law is redefined to exclude falls
from level ground, but the law as it stands (?) at the moment seems
quite clear.

Nonsense. One could fall into a basement from ground level.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:33:44 GMT, [email hidden] (Richard Webb)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No idea where these places are; nor would I particularly want to.

Thats good. You could not possibly afford the charges.

If the charges are high all the more reason to provide safety.

Quoted message said:

You are a sick little sod for trolling on this topic.. How do you live
with yourself.

It's not a troll. It's a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Quoted message said:

work at height means height between two places.

Really ? The regulations dont mention what you claim at all, another
invention ?

A direct quote from the Work at Height regulations 2005;

"work at height" means -
(a) work in any place, including a place at or below ground level;
(b) obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except

by a staircase in a permanent workplace,
where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury;

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. One could fall into a basement from ground level.

Of course one could, and covered by the definition above,

Quoted message said:

It's a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

The issue has been addressed by recent legislation.

You may not like the result, but you will just have to put up with
that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

The issue has been addressed by recent legislation.

You may not like the result, but you will just have to put up with
that.

Not necessarily. Legislation is not cast in stone and circumstances
or events can be the beginning of change.

Just look at what 9/11 did for legislation.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

work at height means height between two places.

Really ? The regulations dont mention what you claim at all, another
invention ?

Not at all. work at height means at height not on the same level

Quoted message said:

A direct quote from the Work at Height regulations 2005;

"work at height" means -
(a) work in any place, including a place at or below ground level;
(b) obtaining access to or egress from such place while at work, except

See above.

Quoted message said:

by a staircase in a permanent workplace,
where, if measures required by these Regulations were not taken, a
person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury;

A kerb is no higher than a step on a staircase

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. One could fall into a basement from ground level.

Of course one could, and covered by the definition above,

So you were wrong :-)

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk