Too many safety concerns? 6

[Unotec]

I am an immigrant in a so-called developed country. I am impressed at the EH&S stuff. More in particular, SAFETY. I know that common sense and knowledge are not as common as they should be, but some of the safety precautions seem just plain ridiculous.
I am not saying safety should not play a major role in engineering. On the contrary, it should be front and foremost. Back home I saw stuff that people here are just amazed actually happened, but it did. (on the other hand, back home you do not see pedestrians being run over by a slow moving train. Oh, and suing the train company)
I am not saying things should be the way they are in sub-developed countries, otherwise I would not be here but:
At which point does engineering stops engineering against stupidity?
At which point is people liable for their own stup... negligence?
How do you show where to draw the line between a possible negative event and chances of an asteroid hitting your plant?
I have had project add-ons that caused my projects to go 20-30% over budget upon an EH&S advisor's unreal recommendation/request.
Things like adding a second set of stairs off a catwalk where a ladder would have sufficed. This is in case the operator that happens to be up there is overweight and might not be able to egress quickly enough. (a second set of stairs. There is one already, the second means of EMERGENCY egress was the laddder).
Installing a catwalk over a 3’ tall berm that everybody jumps anyway?
Forcing to wear a hard hat while taking soil samples in the middle of a farmer's field (I guess in case the sky falls).
Examples are lots but it comes down to: Where does engineering stops and basic common sense kicks in?
(I apologize for my grammar, but English is not my mother language)

 

[rbcoulter]

Blame the lawyers.

 

[MadMango]

The nonsense will stop with the law suits, which will no stop. I'm still waiting on the pinch-point warning decal on the door sill of my next car so I know not to slam my ankle or fingers in it when closing the door.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[hokie66]

No need to apologize for your grammar. You are doing just fine. We need more people in our "so-called developed countries" to rail against the stupid practices you describe.

 

[BJC]

Life is cheaper in developing countries. Not my opinion pretty much economic fact. As countries develope life becomes more valuable, probably the reason that drives developement or that drives some people to move to developed countries.
".. but some of the safety precautions seem just plain ridiculous.. "Behind every safety rule or regulation there are dead people. The cost of the extra engineering and construction is based on how people are valued. It's not what you or I value people most of the time it's up to a jury.
If you design a ladder off a catwalk instead of some stairs -whats the difference? Maby one of a thousand people fall off a ladder and only one out of five thousand fall off the stairs. So you saved money but injured 4 people. Compair the exta cost of the stairs against an ambulance ride to the hospital and the cost of setting a broken leg. Better yet compair the price of a serious back injury. In East Bumhump it may be a clear call for a ladder but not here.
If people aren't important and "pure engineering" is go back. You can build bridges without gardrails, cars without seatbelts, stairs without handrails, etc. Save lots of money, whats a few maimed and injured people??

 

[monkeydog]

Ahh yes, I am soooo glad the coffee cups now warn me that the contents are hot.

 

[Unotec]

BCJ, I understand what you are saying and I, by no means, would put an economic benefit over a life.
You are right; life is cheaper in developing countries. I have seen it in both. Here, killing a rig hand is over $3MM. There a small check to the family and everybody shuts up. I DESPISE that!
However, there should be a point where people should be accountable for their own negligence. I understand when the design has to be such that will protect people from harm. Especially when a complex process is involved and not just anybody might understand its operation. But when you have to design a system layout in which you are forcing a lazy operator to walk over a few more meters so that he cannot possibly climb over the burner's exhaust... well...
An example I use a lot is pedestrians. I come from the largest city in the world and kids know how to cross a street. Here pedestrians just bolt into the street without looking (not kids necessarily). Kind of remind me of cows or deer on the highway.
What I am saying is that some of the safety precautions are in place because people are too used to safeguards and that, sometimes, makes them too lazy to think what they are doing. Thus an accident will eventually happen.
I do think there is a factor of over protection that is replacing thinking for some people.
For the record, some of us did not move due to safety practices. Some because of a better life style (depending on ones definition but this is an inarguable point, life is easier) and some others chasing edge technologies to work with (which happen to come with a more relaxed life).

 

[hokie66]

BJC, I don't think unotec is calling for any of those ridiculous things. He just wants common sense, and so do I. The hard hat in the middle of the farmer's field is the type of thing which makes no sense. A hat, yes, to protect against the sun, but why a plastic one?

 

[eliebl]

I never did think that you should try and use a hairdryer in the shower.

Seriously,

I suppose this is where you have to look at what the courts call a reasonable person and perform a reasonable person test. It seems like the reasonable person has lost many of it's IQ points.

 

[BJC]

"What I am saying is that some of the safety precautions are in place because people are too used to safeguards and that, sometimes, makes them too lazy to think what they are doing. Thus an accident will eventually happen."
A few examples please.
Your first example was of a ladder vs stairs. OSHA and the construction industry has lots of data supporting the safety of stairs vs ladders.
What would you propose for pedestrians? Fences along the sidewalks? Cowcatchers on cars? How about schools that teach traffic safety. I think I first heard that from my kindergarten teacher,things like "Cross at the crosswalk, look both ways, make eye contact with the driver" etc.

Commmon sense isn't that common and never has been.
The other thing people keep trying to do is build systems and machines that are fool proof. It's not possible, fools are continually being prefected.

"Some because of a better life style" Which I would assumes means a safer life for you and your kids. Does their school have a fence around it? Kind of a waste of money if everone would just teach their kids not run out in the street.
Does your house have a smoke detector? It's usually a local regulation here, was it where you came from?

 

[GregLocock]

I must admit I used to be a firm advocate of the idea that we should take personal responsibility for our safety.

However, for the last few years we have been running an intensely policed safety culture where I work, eg you MUST wear high vis gear near traffic and forklifts, you MUST walk on the walkways, you MUST wear appropriate footwear.

and guess what? It works. Everybody wins.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Greg, of course it works... because everybody is playing by the exact same rules. If you stay on the walkway, you're not going to get hit by an object that no one would allow near a walkway. If you wear high-vis gear, you're not going to get hit because people are going to look for that high-vis gear rather than straining themselves looking for anything that's remotely human... reduction of necessary processing power to avoid an accident.

But wearing a hardhat in the middle of an open field to take soil samples? There's no reasonable explanation for such a silly rule, unless there is power equipment that could shoot something at high velocity. The items you mention create safety by forcing everyone to follow common rules, reducing what their brains have to process to make it a safe environment. Rules such as mentioned by unotec have the opposite effect, creating rules that force people into situations that are non-obvious, requiring them to think harder all of the time... should I take the ladder or the stairs, should I wear a hardhat when I'm driving out into the field, etc.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[epoisses]

I used to make fun of meaningless or exagerated safety rules and equipment in refineries... until a came to a place where there aren't many... in fact they have a secondary objective (or maybe it's the primary): they reinforce the safety culture.
You just don't set a foot in the plant without a hard hat on. You don't get onto a ladder while someone else is above you. You don't leave any objects on your office floor that could be a tripping hazard. You don't work on any piece of equipment before having isolated it (both physically and electrically).
Bad safety habits at the "base of the pyramid" will lead to fatalities at the top, good habits will save lives. Sorry if I'm sound like an HSE guru, but when I hear my current management complain about lousy safety statistics, while I see people in the plant without a hard hat, without safety glasses, without breathing protection while the environment is dusty, the place just screams for a list of fundamental safety rules... so-called humorous billboards that encourage good behavior, near miss incident reports discussed in meetings, weekly safety tips distributed by email, and everything else I used to get tired of...

 

[Gymmeh]

A am in the material handling industry where, without rules, and alot of common sense, people could get easily get destroyed. There is nothing that gets my adrenaline going more then hearing someone yell “CALL 911!!!!” (Not a common thing where I work, but it happens!)

A lot of the rules are there for obvious reasons. I don’t know if it’s the original intent but I also think a lot of rules are in place to insure the habitual nature of a safety procedure. One example: the hard hat in the field. Some places require you wear steel-toe, glasses, and a hard hat, in the “field”. By the nature of the stupid rules, I always put on my steel-toe, and glasses without thinking, when leaving my office. The other day I even put my steel-toe and grabbed my glasses to go to the bank… when I realized I felt like a real idiot, but I didn’t have to worry my feet...at the bank

 

[btrueblood]

...but, had you dropped your cashed paycheck (you take it in gold coins like me, no?) on your toe, you would've been okay.

 

[Gymmeh]

LoL, yes since I am paid in gold bars, I require extra saftey measures, I dont know what country you live in but gold is so much better then my visa.

 

[doberdorks]

I still remember when seatbelts became mandatory where I live. My mother's response (now she is a bright practical woman) was
"Oh good, now I'll wear one".

So, at least for some people, rules are just enough to overcome laziness in safety issues.
SLH

 

[DonPhillips]

I have a similar story. I lived in Germany from 1979 until 1982 where seatbelts were mandatory. When I arrived in Ohio to attend school, my uncle picked me up from the airport, and when we got in his truck, I immediately buckled up. He noticed that and he asked me "so, you wear seatbelts, huh?"


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[dcasto]

When the safety group gets overly agressive on safety, its time for a group meeting with them, engineering, operations, and the the group with the money. In some cases, if everyone knows there will be deep conversations over risk, a lawyer is brought in and all notes are collected by the lawyer.

After everyone gets closer to being on the same page, a PHA is held and the risk is reviewed and documented.

If one group keeps making all the changes, then I stop the project completely and do a 100% from scratch PHA. Then on the next project I refuse to start work until a 100% PHA review with all cost estimates in place. After a couple of missed projects, all parties will gety reasonable of be sent packing. As the PM or Project Engineer, you have to provide adult supervision.

 

[bvanhiel]

I suppose this is where you have to look at what the courts call a reasonable person and perform a reasonable person test. It seems like the reasonable person has lost many of it's IQ points.

You can't look at what the average person would do and designing the safety measures for them. If you did, you'd have a 50% mortality rate! You need to look at what the .0001% person would do (assuming you only want a 1 in a million chance of injury). Now it gets to be a lot clearer why it seems that we're designing for idiots. It's because we are.