Yep, but as you point out, it’s about threshold of risk – the risk from a stapler is far less than the risk or being hit by a car (the likelihood might be low, but the severity is high). The risks involved in driving or interacting with vehicles as a pedestrian/cyclist are so normalised that they tend to be ignored.

I’m easily amused. Is it now likely that staff will be urged to use the lift to descend, as going down steps is dangerous; and for health and exercise reasons, encouraged to walk up one or two flights rather than take the lift?

I have just temporarily picked up responsibility for a bunch of labs which my predecessor had turned into a ‘work-free safety zone’. At the request of the users, we completely revised the procedures, giving them a lot more responsibility and freedom. It took about three months to sort it all out and at the end they all said ‘Yes, yes we understand. We all think this is a good way to go’.

Tomorrow I am bollocking two of them for a cretinous piece of utter stupidity, less than three weeks after the new procedures came in. I intend to make a terrible example.

Bedds post makes a lot of sense to me.

Again, I am now IOSH and embarking on further training, and involved in Play Safety Forum etc for work. This week I am finishing our revamped H&S policy and Risk Benefit Assessments.

I work in an industry where we have a slightly different approach to risk – education. In a factory (for example), you want flat floor, that is grippy and steps even, grippy and hand railed. In a playground, we need wobbly steps, odd surfaces and lack of handrails. This is a good thing, it allows children to learn physical literacy and manage risk decisions for themselves. In line with ROSPA, HSE, the Lord Young Report, Play Safety Forum etc, we don’t apply the ‘rules’ as you would in industry, and use risk benefit assessments, dynamic risk assessments, low paperwork and much more staff judgement.

This is extending to educational trips, classrooms etc where we focus on the unnaceptable risks (paper cuts and bruises are acceptable, as are a multitude of minor injuries and issues) and focus on the real and unnaceptable risks). Again, this change in culture is now extending into many other areas as we realise the benefits of not impacting operations or restricting learning.

All the ‘elf n safety gorn mad’ rules need to be put I to context of ‘as far as reasonable practical’ and ‘risks cannot be reduced to nil’ and ‘foreseeable’ . HSE quotes and excerpts from h&s at work act, not mine.

But, H&S does stop people trying to kill or injure themselves daily, and has massively reduced accidents that cost time, money, reputation and (most importantly) health. It is proven to work. But it is also proven that we need the next generation to experience risk positively, to help with the safe culture we need.

My work this week is scrutinised by colleagues on Friday, and then shared nationally as ‘best practice’ for all schools. I better get it right….

Years ago we had an Elf’n’ Safety man come into our office to tell us about it all and particularly about CDM. I asked him about ALARP, and he had no idea what I was talking about. Says it all really.
SFARP isn’t quite such a catchy Initialisation.

I’ve been to India & 😯

That is all.

@ap

I agree, there are (as in any job) some less than great ‘elf n safet folk. And who would argue? it is a brave person to pop thier head above the parapet of H&S says (or child protection) and say ‘really?’ Or ‘why?’

I am increasingly asking for evidence for some of the daft things we bump into. Show. Me. The. Ruling. Or. Law. Or. Court. Case. Nothing else matters, I want first hand and recorded, not rumor or I once heard or we always have.
We have increasingly seen ‘rulings’ overturned or H&S reverse options.

We are also increasingly leaning on people to record when it is an issue of liability or insurance, not H&S. And again, I want to see the letter from the insurance company stating why and when. In our experience, the insurance companies are also subject to urban myth and one person once decided on one unrelated case without experience….

I’ve not read all the thread so this may have been covered already.

So, lets say you run a big (or small) company that has some dangerous environments in which people must work. Sometimes people get injured. Sometimes people go home dead. It’s extremely sad, but it happens.

If someone gets injured or killed, the H&S executive will be all over you because quite rightly, everyone deserves to go home in the same state they came to work. And they’ll fine you and give you a bad rep and they can shut you down. No really, they can shut you down.

So you’re going to have to show willing and drive a safety program through your organisation. And then people will claim it’s H&S gone mad, but hey, you’re still trading and maybe a few less people are going home with one less arm than they arrived with.