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)

 

[Unotec]

Now it gets to be a lot clearer why it seems that we're designing for idiots. It's because we are.

Hahaha, now I understand some EH&S people. They might be having us desing for themselves! For even most operators seem to be offended with a few of the safety features.

I believe in basic safety practices and safeguards for non-obvious hazards, but I am still baffled by some requirements. I guess I will have to abide to the 'standard' anyway.

 

[BJC]

"but I am still baffled by some requirements"
Then you need to do a little research.
There's dead people behind every rule.
Not all are because of stupid people. Are you familiar with stupid management? Sometimes smart people do stupid things because of managements stress on more production and lower cost. More accidents can be laid at the feet of these idiots than the stupidity of the guy operating the system in the plant you designed.

 

[IRstuff]

Even the smartest person in the world can start daydreaming and forget that he's supposed to be watching for hazards, or he gets engrossed in some subtasks and misses the big picture.

That's why aircraft carriers always require TWO Landing Signal Officiers (LSOs) to watch EACN and EVERY landing, because the pilots often get engrossed in watching the landing signals and forget other tasks they're supposed to be doing.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[josephv]

"I believe in basic safety practices and safeguards for non-obvious hazards"

The word obvious is just a relative term. For example, as an engineer it is obvious to me that all season tires lose their grip in winter, and that there is extensive evidence that winter tires are far safer in the cold weather. The problem is that the vast majority of people are not engineers, and when they see a commercial in TV that says that all season tires are good, well they might believe it.
Consequently, it is a law in many places to use winter tires during cold weather.

 

[Gymmeh]

joseph, you forgot about commercials with an SUV bashing through 2 feet of snow!

 

[rcooper]

If as an engineer, you design a product which is safe, it is almost always a better product. It it easier to operate, maintain and modify.

The example in the original post of using a staircase as a second means of escape as apposed to a ladder. I agree with the staircase. If it is a means of escape, something has gone wrong. The structure has collapsed, is unstable and you need to get off, but the main means of escape is blocked. And the collapse has resulted in you breaking your leg. With the help of a colleague you can escape down a stair case, but not down a ladder. Therefore a ladder is not suitable as a means of escape. (This is an example, which is open to critism, but is provided to show a point)

My approach to the design of the above situation is to use a hierarchy of means of access where you should put all equipment at ground level as the first means of access.

State that in your design brief and then make it work. Be inovative. If you can achieve this, then you can eliminate the platform and the end result is a better and cheaper solution. I regularly use this approach and regularly reduce the overall cost of projects, while making them better.

Another example, we were asked to replace some pumps which were in a confined space with a potentially explosive atmosphere. To enter the space safely to do any maintenance required three operatives. I decided, there would be no equipment in the confined space or the explosive atmosphere. This allowed me to select equiment which did not have to be designed for the explosive environment and cut the maintenance costs by a third. Again, by eliminating the hazard, I was able to produce a better product and cut costs.

So I would suggest using the health and safety guidance as a tool to improve your designs.

 

[IRstuff]

The fallacy in most people's thinking is that failures are only single-point, hence, such prohibitions appear to be silly. However, it's been demonstrated, innumerably, that catastrophes are RARELY single-point failures. Invariably, there are a chain of failures. so, you can't simply dismiss the ladder example as silly, because there are a number of chains of events that can lead to a ladder being unusable or unsafe.

Likewise, hardhats in the middle of the field; how did you get there? Did you have to go through trees with low branches? Ever get clonked on the head by a branch?


TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Unotec]

Actually, got to the field in a quad. And yes, the hard hat is the EH&S requirement for driving the quad, not a helmet.
And about getting clonked on the head by a branch... well, I never wear a helmet when I go hiking, just when I go biking.
As for the ladder, maybe I should clarify a bit. It is for a catwalk on top of tanks, very seldom used. There has to be two means of egress, according to regulations. It never specifies a staircase or ladder. It could be a pole from the way the regulation reads.

 

[RossABQ]

Our very safety-concious engineering firm just moved into a partially completed commercial office building. It is appalling to see the difference in safety awareness and practice in the commercial construction arena, compared to industrial. I haven't seen a single painter wearing a mask while spraying paint, a single roofer with a tie-off or harness; countless workers standing on the top step of an 8' ladder that is on gravel; the list is endless.

 

[Gymmeh]

I did contract construction work for 5 years during my breaks for University before engineering... And I normally had to get dust masks at my own cost. I can't believe some of the stuff the people in the crews (including myself) would do on a daily basis.

We once had a Law student work with use because his dad told him it was good summer money for a collage student…you can imagine how long a rich kid lawyer lasted.

It makes me not complain about my desk job and benefits package so much.