roythebus Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Daft warnings, seen at Southend Victoria drivers room a few years back: on the hot water tap...danger hot water. On the soap dispenser: soap may damage your skin. Sorry, you can't have things at the drop of a hat. somebody might trip over it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightengine Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The trouble with hi vis jackets is that the world and his dog wear them. Road workers, drain clearers, railway staff, blah, blah blah. It is frequently the case that sometimes you see so many being worn the relevance of wearing a vest is lot because not one stands out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted July 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 24, 2014 Sorry, you can't have things at the drop of a hat. somebody might trip over it. Or you will have to have a h+s course on the correct method of lifting it up off the floor! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 24, 2014 Its called "Manual handling" Refresher course required every three years! Special offer if you book a place on the "Eating your hat" course at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted July 24, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 24, 2014 I used to love the video on "splitting your load". Carry two small, light buckets instead of one large heavy one. We only had one size of bucket to carry spoil in so guess what.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Scott Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I am new to this forum and this thread. as a working volunteer who regularly needs to go trackside you need to wear HV when required BUT only when required, especially at galas. You dont need HV if on an authorised walking route, even if you cross a track - you are concentrating on the task of getting from Ato B looking out for moving trains. I would be wearing HV when prepping the train as I am concentrating on that . You should not need HV to show you are staff, a uniform is far more effective especially if worn with a hat. Do you need to don HV for a shunt. It depends on the shunt. Pulling a complete set out of or back into a siding when you control the shunt from inside a vehicle you dont need it. If you need to get down and go between you do. I totally agree drivers should look out for people not HV. Ramblers on a footpath dont wear HV nor do users of ocupation crossings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Apropos of nothing in particular, last time I was in the USA I visited a "sporting goods store", aka a gun shop, whilst accompanying a shipmate who is a keen shooting enthusiast back home in the UK. (He was after a good sniper scope, for what it's worth). Anyway, I was very amused to see that the camoflage gear which was on sale there had high-viz material at the shoulders, which kind of defeated the object of camo kit, I would have thought. Turns out that this was as a consequence of one hunter getting accidentally shot by another hunter; this was an effort to ward off any future lawsuits... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted August 30, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 30, 2014 During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Army were often seen at vehicle check points wearing camouflage with hi viz vests. I always thought it to be a contradiction in dress function. Edit for typo that I missed in the middle of the night Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Very often in my part of the world we'd see a troop of Ghurkas marching down the road in full camo gear all wearing hivis... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Army were often seen at vehicle check points wearing camouflage with hi viz vests. I always thought it to be a contradiction in dress function. I don't follow your logic? They are wearing hi-vis to easily seen, they are wearing battledress because that is what they wear "at work". I do despair of people poo-pooing health and safety. Do you know that the London 2012 Olympics were first constructed without a single fatality? I'm sorry if people don't like hi-vis vests or the profusion of nanny signs about hot water and wet floors but H&S saves lives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 31, 2014 "It save lives" isn't a good enough answer. Does it save enough lives / prevent enough injuries to be justified? The only way you'll get to 100% safety is to never do anything, so continually using just that argument doesn't cut it. I can't speak for anyone but myself of course but I'd far rather live in a world where the chances of something bad happening to me are very slightly higher (only still very slightly because the odds are low anyway) and not have the suffocating, nannying, cloying world that we've got. If I get hurt so be it. It's not as if you can be certain I won't now anyway, it's just less likely. I despair about people scared of their own shadows. The right balance needs to be struck of course, I don't want Victorian factory conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Apropos of nothing in particular, last time I was in the USA I visited a "sporting goods store", aka a gun shop, whilst accompanying a shipmate who is a keen shooting enthusiast back home in the UK. (He was after a good sniper scope, for what it's worth). Anyway, I was very amused to see that the camoflage gear which was on sale there had high-viz material at the shoulders, which kind of defeated the object of camo kit, I would have thought. Turns out that this was as a consequence of one hunter getting accidentally shot by another hunter; this was an effort to ward off any future lawsuits... Rather more than one being shot; this piece suggests about 1000 shootings per year, with a hundred or so fatalities:- http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/f/HuntingAccident.htm Similar regulations apply in France, I believe, though there fatalities might be reduced by not having the celebratory drink before going out shooting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 31, 2014 I don't follow your logic? They are wearing hi-vis to easily seen, they are wearing battledress because that is what they wear "at work". I do despair of people poo-pooing health and safety. Do you know that the London 2012 Olympics were first constructed without a single fatality? I'm sorry if people don't like hi-vis vests or the profusion of nanny signs about hot water and wet floors but H&S saves lives. a) My logic is the dichotomy of "camoflague" (= to hide) and "hi vis" (= to be seen). I thought it brought mild amusement to a difficult period in our history and everyday lives. b ) Nothing in my post is "poo-poooing health and safety" c) I did not know that "the London 2012 Olympics were first constructed without a single fatality" but I do know now. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the word "first" is significant, but I am at a loss as to what the relevance is to my observation of the Army dress in the context of this thread. Edit to get rid of smiley that appears if you type b followed immediately with a ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 31, 2014 I don't follow your logic? They are wearing hi-vis to easily seen, they are wearing battledress because that is what they wear "at work". I do despair of people poo-pooing health and safety. Do you know that the London 2012 Olympics were first constructed without a single fatality? I'm sorry if people don't like hi-vis vests or the profusion of nanny signs about hot water and wet floors but H&S saves lives. Not exactly so. What saves lives is a proper safety based working culture, recognising and assessing hazards and the procedures needed to deal with them, making sure everyone on site is aware of hazards through training, and a degree of monitoring to ensure that safe systems of work are observed. A lot of that was not directly required by H&S legislation (although it has grown up around some of it) and in addition the building industry continued to have a high level of injury accidents and fatalities for years after teh Health & safety At Work Act became law - in fact it is far more recent legislation which directly covers the construction process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Army were often seen at vehicle check points wearing camouflage with hi viz vests. I always thought it to be a contradiction in dress function. Edit for typo that I missed in the middle of the night Same thing struck me when I glimpsed the national news on tv yesterday. Russin tanks on tank transporters, apparently moving up to the border (tbh I wasn't particularly interested, this was NATIONAL news not INTERNATIONAL), - and they had yellow flashing lights working on the cabs! Bizarre methinks. Stewart (waits to find the BBMF Lancaster painted in Dayglo to corform with H&S requirements) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 31, 2014 H&S legislation certainly had an effect on my profession, field archaeology. Working in un-shored trenches is now a no-no, whereas years ago injuries and occasional deaths occurred. I had to dig somebody out when still a student, fortunately not completelt buried but her leg was broken. The cost of stepping, battering or shoring is now built into the costings for the job. Observations on other peoples' trenches are carried out entirely from the top, even though contractors' staff may be in them. However the legislation has changed. There used to be standard depths below which excavations should be shored; now they have to be certified daily as not liable to collapse, by a 'competent person'. The instructor on a shoring course reckoned that in law nobody was actually 'competent' because if a certified safe trench collapsed they obviously weren't competent. But this allows contractors to work in trenches without shoring, usually based solely on the experience of a site foreman. An experienced archaeologist would be more 'competent' than some of them; indeed on at least two occasions I had to warn workers their trenches were going unstable. Sorry for going OT but the thread seems to have moved on to H&S in general. Hi-vis was explained to me by the site manager for one of the major construction companies, as a means of seeing where people were, in case of skiving etc. Pete, now safely retired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Supervising a railway replacement for TfL a few years ago at Northfields, the operator, First Group) and TfL insisted on supervisors wearing hivis. The mrs did not wear one as she was working purely on the station concourse with no road traffic nearby. With loads of TfL customer information assistants around wearing their blue hivis, guess who the passengers would ask first? The mrs!! Maybe she looked more official with a dark raincoat on and holding a clip board. I have a fear of hivis, having been attacked by wasps whilst wearing one about 10 years ago. They must have mistaken my orange jacket for a meadow of rapeseed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 The US is unfenced, and would appear to have serious, pervasive issues with trespass. Try http://oli.org/ for the official message - or i'd reccomend having a read of this blog post http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2014/06/25/we-have-new-darwin-awards-nominees.aspx for some stories from the pointy end. The evidence doesn't suggest to me they are more aware than folk over here... They are not but they also have 220,000 miles of track (down from 400K) compared to 20,000 miles of track in the UK. 80% of it through rural or sparsely habited country. By the sound of it, from this thread, fencing in railways is a waste of time and money. Most deaths in the USA occur at or near grade crossings (level crossings). Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 31, 2014 I always thought that the intention with fencing wasn't to prevent trespass but to keep livestock off the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumblestripe Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 b ) Nothing in my post is "poo-poooing health and safety" c) I did not know that "the London 2012 Olympics were first constructed without a single fatality" but I do know now. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the word "first" is significant, but I am at a loss as to what the relevance is to my observation of the Army dress in the context of this thread. Sorry, I should have made clear that my second point was not directed at your goodself and was a more general observation. "It save lives" isn't a good enough answer. Does it save enough lives / prevent enough injuries to be justified? One life. Unless you value human life lower than I do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 One life. Unless you value human life lower than I do? But lives are 'costed' and if the cost of the improvements to save a life is above that level then the improvements wont be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Sorry, I should have made clear that my second point was not directed at your goodself and was a more general observation. One life. Unless you value human life lower than I do? If we as a society truly believed that then then the national speed limits on roads would be vastly lower and forms of extreme sports and the likes of boxing would be banned. Thankfully some sense prevails. As for the value of a life, I'm sure the insurers can put a number on it, but every life does have a value and it aint that high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Hi Roythebus, I have a fear of hivis, having been attacked by wasps whilst wearing one about 10 years ago. They must have mistaken my orange jacket for a meadow of rapeseed O.T.> Most likely bees, not wasps - they don't like the colour red, horses, petrol or dogs. I expect you were standing in their flight path - they'll make you move . Btw, you can out-run a wasp, but you can't out-run a bee! Since bees navigate by uv, don't flap your arms about, that'll really piss them off, instead walk quickly away, into some shade, indoors, wherever. Sometimes, they'll wait for you to come outside again! If you're worried, send someone else outside first Best wishes, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 31, 2014 Sorry, I should have made clear that my second point was not directed at your goodself and was a more general observation. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted September 1, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 1, 2014 One life. Unless you value human life lower than I do? Then you should never do anything because there's always some chance of something going wrong. You can reduce that risk but never eliminate it and there's a point at which we decide that the risk to human life is worth the functionality. Trains would be safer if they never went above walking pace. I also value living over existing, so there's also a point at which, personally at any rate, the suffocating impact on living isn't worth the slight extra chance of more mere existance. The safest world would be a very restrictive, very regulated one and I don't think it would be worth living in such a world. I don't value human life above absolutely everything and I've never, ever been persuaded by "If it saves one life it's worth it." We're already in a country where I'd prefer to sacrifice some personal safety if it meant less of that constant restrictive feeling we get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.