[Closed] Reported a van driver who was on the phone

Make the world a safer place. Dynasafe, a global market leader in the disposal of unexploded ordnance

Could it have been a Note 7 they were transporting? He could have been checking the temperature on his cheek?

What is this most hazardous thing?

What is this most hazardous thing?

Commuting there, or driving on their behalf.

Out of interest, what were their actions?

They shot him at dawn.

....and she was initially surprised and then furious!

people in their massive SUVs or 4x4s with poor all round visibility are crap at reversing.

Yeah but going back to [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-the-forums-verdict-ondriver-aids ]driving aids[/url].. my FiL drives a new Range Rover and as well as normal beepy reverse sensors it also has radar to judge if spaces are big enough to park in and cameras that display on the dash screen with overlays showing where you end up on your current course.

And if that's still too hard it can just park for you instead:

(remarkably it still takes him ages to park! 😆 )

Slightly OT but involve mobile, phones, stairs and H&S.
I was director responsible for H&S in a previous company, each month I had to issue a H&S Report with things like accident stats as part of the board papers. One month our only accident was our MD dislocating his shoulder after grabbing they hand rail on the stairs when he slipped and fell while sending an email. Best board meeting ever!

Commuting there, or driving on their behalf.

Been doing driver training at all my full time jobs, first was 99. Progressive companies are so it is happening.

Sure, but even with such mitigation the residual risk is still very high relative to most things that we'd be up to even in a research lab or in the field with heavy plant as you're exposed to lots of hazard you have no control over. Certainly much higher than walking down the stairs, even if you are carrying a pint of coffee and talking on your phone.

An awful lot of employers don't even assume responsibility for the commute despite them being the only reason you're doing it.

....and she was initially surprised and then furious!

Sure, but even with such mitigation the residual risk is still very high relative to most things that we'd be up to even in a research lab or in the field with heavy plant as you're exposed to lots of hazard you have no control over.

That is whataboutry though isn't it.

Not really. My argument is that by and large corporate HSE is an exercise in arse covering and box ticking, with things that are easier to police or appear easier to fix being addressed much more stringently than activities that are actually relatively hazardous. If HSE was primarily focussed on hazard reduction then that wouldn't be the case.

An awful lot of employers don't even assume responsibility for the commute despite them being the only reason you're doing it.

Yep. We know a few doctors that have been involved in car crashes (one fatally) after working 14 hour days/nights etc. It's a hidden cost of such practises.

Likewise, look at the truck-related deaths in cities. When they are on a site the huge blind spots and poor visibility often means they can't manoeuvre at all without at least one banksman in high viz spotting for them, and even then they have to keep speeds low - but as soon as they leave the gates they are free to mingle with city traffic, cyclists and pedestrians without any assistance.

When they are on a site the huge blind spots and poor visibility often means they can't manoeuvre at all without at least one banksman in high viz spotting for them, and even then they have to keep speeds low - but as soon as they leave the gates they are free to mingle with city traffic, cyclists and pedestrians without any assistance.

By phoning a company and asking to speak to the CEO carries more weight, in my experience.

I've reported bad driving in a company vehicle, company took it seriously and even phoned me to say that they'd spoken with the person concerned. They were grateful I'd bought it to their attention.

. If HSE was primarily focussed on hazard reduction then that wouldn't be the case.

I'm wondering how directly involved with H&S those complaining about it have been? Have you even carried out a risk assessment? I was local H&S rep for a while and filled out plenty of risk assessments and it all starts to make a lot more sense if you think about it properly. My employer like most decent ones did address hazards properly - that is the whole point of the risk assessment exercise where as a member of staff you get to highlight the real hazards and risks. I'm quite glad to have had that experience which helps with assessing risk in real life.

I did quite a few for trials activities at other locations and always made sure to include driving (it was invariably by far the highest risk activity). I suspect you could make an argument for stopping any work activity which involved driving as the residual risk was still too high - but then that would clearly also include commuting (not that that was ever risk assessed) and I doubt even the H&S complainers would suggest that was sensible.

Yeah but going back to driving aids.. my FiL drives a new Range Rover and as well as normal beepy reverse sensors it also has radar to judge if spaces are big enough to park in and cameras that display on the dash screen with overlays showing where you end up on your current course.

And if that's still too hard it can just park for you instead:

Is that in an Evoque?
Amazing with all that there's nothing to warn them if they stray into a cycle lane and almost barge a cyclist into the kerb! 🙁

Ahh, but Ewoke drivers must get their own thread..

Let's not spoil this one 😆

Thread update - I've heard absolutely nothing back from Chubb.co.uk

zokes - Still not a customer

Thankfully we've worked at different labs. This mindless safety for safety's sake rots people's brains.

H&S is important, yes. But trying to manage it to a level where it would make your average evening sat on the sofa appear the most hazardous thing you'll do all day is just about as stupid as getting in a lift with 30 litres of LN2.

Equally I've worked in some labs where H&S was a box ticking exercise rather than something anyone put any conscious thought into.

One person actually passed out in the lab (and then was allowed to drive home!) because it was seen as more important that the work was done 'correctly' rather than safely. The lab met the workplace exposure limit on the MSDS, but no one had thought through that maybe limiting exposure in general was a better starting point. So I moved all the PC's and equipment outside the lab, meaning you only needed to be in there to do lab work and cut exposure form 8 hours to around 2.

The handrail (and reverse parking) is just reducing risk at not cost. It doesn't slow me down on stairs, or slow me down parking. And it makes things a little bit safer. And it sets you in the mind of "how can I do this safer", so as a result of those actions, you start handling all solvents in the fume cupboard rather than just benzene.

Of course at the other extreme you get idiots like the company I worked for that gave people Mars bars as a reward for using the lift rather than the stairs..............

A manager gave me two really good bits of advice:
1) Good H&S initiatives are ones that you have to sound like a petulant teenager when arguing against (Why wouldn't you use the handrail?).
2) Never make statements that you wouldn't say the opposite of (e.g. "We take safety seriously").

[i](remarkably it still takes him ages to park! ) [/I]

Yep, far harder to park my nice new shiny car with detectors and cameras that it was in my old Vectra with handy towbar... 😉

2) Never make statements that you wouldn't say the opposite of (e.g. "We take safety seriously").

Help - that makes my head hurt.

The opposite of that statement - 'We don't take safety seriously' - I wouldn't say that

So I should never say 'We take safety seriously'? Why wouldn't i say that? Am I missing something?

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]Of course at the other extreme you get idiots like the company I worked for that gave people Mars bars as a reward for using the lift rather than the stairs..............

I guess they don't have to report heart attacks on their HSE returns!

The opposite of that statement - 'We don't take safety seriously' - I wouldn't say that

So I should never say 'We take safety seriously'? Why wouldn't i say that? Am I missing something?

Presumably because it's supposed to be self evident and it makes an employer sound simultaneously dumb and sanctimonious if they do make such a statement.

Like an employer having to make a statement such as ....."We never execute employees and feast on their dead flesh".

It's a nice sentiment but shouldn't need saying.

So I should never say 'We take safety seriously'? Why wouldn't i say that? Am I missing something?

Yep, that's exactly it. What does that statement really tell you about the company? Absolutely nothing because no company in their right mind would say the opposite, therefore it says absolutely nothing about the company, it's H&S procedures, it's record, or anything else beyond "we told someone in marketing that safety was important".

Compare it to other corporate guff often spouted:
"we work hard and play hard", that's fine, you could work hard but expect everyone to leave promptly at 5:30 instead of staying on for the late evening pizza and amphetamines party. So there is an alternative and as a statement it's perfectly fine.

"We like to collaborate", yup that's a decent distinction between a CAD designer choosing between graphic design studio, and a nuclear weapons developer.

[edit] PP says it beter!

Like an employer having to make a statement such as ....."We never execute employees and feast on their dead flesh".

It's a nice sentiment but shouldn't need saying.

I agree with the OP about the use of the phone whilst driving.

But the workplace has gone a bit daft in terms of some of the H&S risk assessments.

I was one of the risk assessor sin a large US company in the UK.

It was a chemical / pharma company where there was an obsession about handrail holding and reverse parking. The reverse parking in particular was pure non sense. Nobody can give a satisfactory answer as to how it is safer.

When parking it will always involve both driving straight in or out and a reverse manoveour.

There was so much attention to this politically correct low rise safety stuff, yet the fire assembly point was right next to 2 enormous vessels contain liquid alcohol.

In the event of a fire , we would have been standing right next to the biggest and most volatile substance in the plant.

It took ages to get the fire assembly point moved, due to the difficult act of getting the sign moved and altering the literature etc.

We even had to have a training session to "educate" all concerned where the new fire assembly point was.

What does that statement really tell you about the company? Absolutely nothing because no company in their right mind would say the opposite..

Nah, the point of seemingly obvious statements like [i]'We take safety seriously'[/i] is the implied (but not libellous) sub-text that some of their competitors don't.

Really really common trick in advertising.

If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

[quote=Denis99 ]The reverse parking in particular was pure non sense. Nobody can give a satisfactory answer as to how it is safer.
When parking it will always involve both driving straight in or out and a reverse manoveour.

I'm fairly sure there are stats which prove it, though in any case the worrying thing is that nobody was able to provide the quite simple explanation - the reversing part is clearly the more hazardous part, and when reversing into a space there are no moving objects causing you problems.

Without getting into the whole paranoiac HSE culture debate, phones whilst driving are a real bugbear of mine. If I'm a passenger I'll video them, grass em up to their company and inform the police. We've all checked our messages in stationary traffic, I'm sure, but I've recorded drivers steering a lorry with their forearms, texting with both hands, whilst doing 50+ MPH down the motorway?! String 'em up, I reckon.

[quote=GrahamS ]If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

The one from the company which didn't even have to think about whether their product was contaminated with mercury and cyanide?

But there are plenty of statements that are worth making and that you still wouldn't say the opposite of.

'Our product is uniquely derived by a patented process using only vegetable starting materials'

but I do get what you mean.....

Re reverse parking: in the oil industry it was because you have less visibility of other vehicles moving around - there might have been no other vehicles next to you when you parked but you might have a high sided van either side of you when you come to leave. If you are reversing out then you need to get nearly all of your vehicle into the road before you can see in either direction. Actually having just typed that out, it's bleeding obvious!

If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

The one made by the company that doesn't feast on the dead flesh of their employees.

All my food needs to be 100% Zombie and Cannibal free. I have an intolerance.

Always been a bit suspicious of the Man from Del Monte if I'm honest. Says "Yes!" much too readily for my liking.

If there are two near identical cartons of orange juice next to each other on the shelf, at the same price, but one proclaims it is "100% Mercury and Cyanide free" then which one would you buy?

Our job was to compare and rate contractors on H&S, so I see your point, but what we'd actually do is:
1) Only give the statement credit if we'd asked for the OJ to be mercury and cyanide free.
2) Ask them to provide evidence to back up that claim (it wastes everyone's time, but they made a rod for their own back)

When parking it will always involve both driving straight in or out and a reverse manoveour.

Yes, but you either reverse into an empty space which you know is empty because you just drove past and checked.

Or you reverse out of a space, and until you're halfway out, you're completely blind to any traffic on the road/pavement your reversing into.

So in your argument it's 50/50, in mine it's better. For no extra effort you may as well go with it.

Also:
Environmental benefits - cars are more polluting when reving the engine when cold, i.e. exactly what happens when reversing and using the clutch. So you use slightly less fuel and emit less pollution by reverse parking.

Safety benefits - on a large site it's likely you may need to evacuate by vehicle. Imagine the chaos if an office full of people was ordered out and all had to reverse out of their space rather than driving straight out.

Still can't see how it is safer to reverse in.

Stats can be made to confirm all sorts of arguments.

Big supermarkets, nearly everyone parks nose in to load the boot with the stuff they have bought, I don't recall seeing any accidents when I shop, but there must be some sort of stats that the big firms use to convince each you that parking nose in is safer in this case.

I just thought, and still do, that it was someone high up in the leadership structure who wanted to make a statement.

They did seem very hung up on low risk level politically correct safety issues.

At clocking off time it was like a Grand Prix start line with all the cars lined up in the same direction. The reduced awareness by a lot of people and their desire to leave rapidly was actually encouraged by facing the right way out.

When there was random parking, the driver awareness was actually higher, and less of a Grand Prix start.

No problem, glad I'm retired and away from the politically correct safety stuff.

Big supermarkets, nearly everyone parks nose in to load the boot with the stuff they have bought, I don't recall seeing any accidents when I shop, but there must be some sort of stats that the big firms use to convince each you that parking nose in is safer in this case.

I've never been told to park nose in at a supermarket, it's a free for all.

The reason they don't force you is the same reason air planes don't have 4 point harnesses despite the fact there's a slim chance it could save lives (and wouldn't cost much to implement). No company in their right minds want's to give the impression of being less safe!

Easyjet - pahhh, they're so unsafe they have to have 4 point harnesses.

Waitrose - pahhh, there car parks are so bad you have to reverse park.

if you really want to bring it to Chubb's attention, just bung it on twitter. Add in a couple of police forces and tabloid newspapers. The latter two probably won't do anything, but it grabs attention.

I've had a reply asking where and when the incident happened. It look like the original contact has been around the company a bit.

[quote=Denis99 ]Still can't see how it is safer to reverse in.

I presume you've not bothered to read several slightly different but all perfectly clear explanations? I haven't even worked anywhere that does it and park nose in at the supermarket, yet it seems obvious to me (if supermarkets provided space for loading behind parking places I'd certainly reverse park instead).

Big supermarkets, nearly everyone parks nose in to load the boot with the stuff they have bought, I don't recall seeing any accidents when I shop, but there must be some sort of stats that the big firms use to convince each you that parking nose in is safer in this case.

Maybe not accidents, but near miss?
Person walking across the back of a moving (reversing) car
Kids running around
Cars driving down lanes looking for spaces not where they are going

There are loads of potential accidents / near miss that can happen when reversing as (most people anyway) cant easily look in all directions when trying to look over their shoulder, add to that bigger blind spots looking out the back of even a normal car.

Businesses who can influence how their staff park on their property then realise its very easy to reduce this risk for no detriment just by making everyone reverse park so that when they drive away they will start with a better chance of spotting other car-park users. There is obviously a risk in the reverse parking itself, but its much less than a restricted view reverse out of a space.

Big supermarkets, nearly everyone parks nose in to load the boot with the stuff they have bought, I don't recall seeing any accidents when I shop

Really? I see loads of near-misses in car parks.

"UK drivers are involved in 1,400 car park prangs every day"

-- [url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2839262/Number-car-park-accidents-increase-vehicles-bigger.html ]UK drivers pay out £716m a year for car park prangs (ThisIsMoney, Nov 2014)[/url]

Over a third (35%) have had their car pranged at least once, while almost as many (31%) have experienced multiple occurrences: of the latter, 28% say they have had three lots of damage and nearly a quarter (23%) have had five incidences.

The most common location for a car to be damaged is the supermarket car park – unsurprising for anyone who has seen the cluelessness of the average British shopping driver on a weekly basis – with almost a half of motorists (48%) naming it as the scene of the crime.
..
9 top tips to avoid damage when parking

1. Ensure that you park centrally in the space, within the white lines and as straight as possible.

2. Reverse into parking spaces – it gives you greater control and it will be easier to get out of the space safely.
...

-- [url= http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/727980/Two-thirds-drivers-say-vehicles-damaged-car-parks ]Two-thirds of drivers say their vehicles have been damaged in car parks (Express, Nov 2016)[/url]

@aracer - if parking spaces were angled, think herring-bone, then parking would be simpler. The triangle at the back of the parking space would allow space for loading, you'd need a walkway of sorts behind the cars to allow segregated access. Setting off is then a simple matter of filtering in to the flow of traffic.

@GrahamS - I wonder how long it will be before insurance companies reduce or refuse payout if you park nose-in? (if they don't already)

Big supermarkets, nearly everyone parks nose in to load the boot with the stuff they have bought, I don't recall seeing any accidents when I shop

Get a job collecting trollies in a supermarket car park then.

When I worked in Safeway when I was at school I witnessed hundreds of low speed minor bumps, virtually all caused by people reversing. Even got hit by a few whilst pushing trolleys.

[quote=whitestone ]@aracer - if parking spaces were angled, think herring-bone, then parking would be simpler. The triangle at the back of the parking space would allow space for loading, you'd need a walkway of sorts behind the cars to allow segregated access. Setting off is then a simple matter of filtering in to the flow of traffic.

Sure, the trouble it seems land is more expensive than accidents.