Discuss - health and safety gone mad?

mudcow007

heard today about a railway worker who removed a trolley off a live rail in a bid to stop any trains from running into it.

the guy has been sacked due to "safety breach" what do you think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

bails87

mudcow007 wrote:

heard today about a railway worker who removed a trolley off a live rail in a bid to stop any trains from running into it.

the guy has been sacked due to "safety breech" what do you think

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

BBC News wrote:

South West Trains said Mr Faletto was dismissed for a "serious safety breach" but refused to go into further detail.

This action was taken following a full and thorough internal investigation and the decision was also upheld at an appeal hearing

So we've only got his side of things, but his case has been heard twice and his appeal failed....

I read somewhere else that the current wasn't actually turned off. He was dismissed because he went down onto a 'live' track without permission and without the rails being off.


The station is also a 'terminus' with a drop into the sea at one end, so trains wouldn't have been flying through at high speed, they would have entered at walking pace. Which means there was no immediate need to go down onto the track, putting himself at risk, along with the people who'd have had to help him if he'd been hit/electrocuted.

So, in my humble opinion....no, it's not health and safety gone mad

The Rookie

If he had killed himself, the train company would have been liable even though he had gone against procedure, so no, not gone mad, in fact for once slightly sensible.

Simon

Anonymous

We have H&S cases like this at work.

It often comes down to whether they like you/want to keep you. Or, superiors have it in for you/want to get rid of you.

Looks like he may well have broken the rules and so rightfully was sacked, but I bet if they liked him/wanted to keep him he'd have got a written warning/final warning.

CyclingBantam

I'm sure I read that 'Health and Safety' laws have changed very, very little in the last 40 years or so.

The ridiculous 'health and safety gone mad' phrase (not directed at you OP) has been coined by the press to wind up the general public in to a state of outrage.

I think the H&S becomes an issue is when people make ridiculous descisions to ban things they think could contravene H&S due to the general histeria. I think the fear of lawsuits also doesn't help.

SimonAH

CyclingBantam wrote:

I'm sure I read that 'Health and Safety' laws have changed very, very little in the last 40 years or so.

The ridiculous 'health and safety gone mad' phrase (not directed at you OP) has been coined by the press to wind up the general public in to a state of outrage.

I think the H&S becomes an issue is when people make ridiculous descisions to ban things they think could contravene H&S due to the general histeria. I think the fear of lawsuits also doesn't help.

I think the fear of bloody lawsuits is one of the most evil things to hit these shores for many a year. Apologies to the lawers on here - but the sooner we stop 'no win no fee' ban legal advertising and grind the ambulance chasers out of action the better for the entire country.

When my daughter's school closes for literally 2mm of snow due to fear of lawsuit.......ffs.

bails87

CyclingBantam wrote:

I'm sure I read that 'Health and Safety' laws have changed very, very little in the last 40 years or so.

The ridiculous 'health and safety gone mad' phrase (not directed at you OP) has been coined by the press to wind up the general public in to a state of outrage.

This is exactly the issue.

H&S bans very, very little. But gets blamed for a huge amount.

For example: (Apologies for linking to the Daily Mail)
Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree falls victim to elf 'n' safety after visitors damage its roots

The thousands of visitors drawn to Sir Isaac’s childhood home each year could be damaging the roots. And in an effort to ensure it keeps flourishing, a willow barrier has been put around the tree

The 2ft-high fence was designed to preserve the tree, not exclude visitors.

But Roger has fallen for it:

Roger, England wrote:

elf n safety gone mad thanks to Gordon Brown and his EU pc brigade. NOW were not allowed to climb trees.
- Roger, England, 11/5/2011 18:54

See the same for stories about football, apple bobbing, firefighters using poles, hanging baskets, homemade cake sales, swimming goggles, conkers, tree climbing, lifeguards, cheese-rolling and PCSOs not being able to help people who're drowning. Bollorcks, all of them.

W1

It's the litigation culture (which, according to some on here, doesn't exist and is "offensive" to mention), not "health and safety" laws that have done the damage. People are terrified of being sued, even when (a) the risk may be tiny and (b) they may have no liability as long as they've acted reasonably. But the fear is enough and the Daily Wail loves getting all worked up about it.

If you want to blame anyone, look at the spamming cowboy lawyers and the "I know my rights" brigade who know and "deserve" every penny of compo they can lay their grubby mits on, in many cases with dubious (if not fraudlent) cases.

ianm7222

HSE are annoyed about bad press and started this campaign a couple of years ago to counter the ridiculous decisions made by some individuals.

Some of them are quite smart, it's as funny as asafety gets I'm affraid!

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/

Confusedboy

As an ex railwayman, I have to say that anyone who is down on the track is at a good bit of risk even before you factor live rails into the equation, and is almost certainly in breach of the H & S regs unless they are authorised to be there, in which case there are lookouts and warning systems in place to protect you. This guy may have thought he was doing the right thing, but the correct procedure is to inform the signalman as a matter of some urgency that the line is obstructed.

I bet this incident has a history of others behind it; anyone who will jump down off a platform at will sounds like a bit of a liablility to me.

turnerjohn

W1 wrote:

It's the litigation culture (which, according to some on here, doesn't exist and is "offensive" to mention), not "health and safety" laws that have done the damage. People are terrified of being sued, even when (a) the risk may be tiny and (b) they may have no liability as long as they've acted reasonably. But the fear is enough and the Daily Wail loves getting all worked up about it.

If you want to blame anyone, look at the spamming cowboy lawyers and the "I know my rights" brigade who know and "deserve" every penny of compo they can lay their grubby mits on, in many cases with dubious (if not fraudlent) cases.

+1 exactly !

shm_uk

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name

:twisted: