Lathe safety (off topic prevention)

[Michael G]

I was going to add this to the AL336D lathe crash started by CC555 - http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=193264 but that would be taking that further off topic, so a new thread is perhaps more appropriate.
The comment was made that leadscrew covers are actually a safety device - now read on...


I've never seen any mention of a "safety" aspect - leadscrew turns so slowly it's hard to imagine an issue.

http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/12148/GN2BTurning2BLathes_web.pdf

Page 5.
We bought some secondhand machines at work and one of the engineers immediately got quotes for refitting them so they were "safe". Of course, as soon as the "S" word was mentioned no one could argue how silly what was proposed was. I spoke to a dealer the other day who said that most of their machinery stock could only be sold to backyarders and hobbiests as even though machine tools have been used in that form for over a hundred years, these days they are not considered good enough with respect to guarding.
When I did failure mode assessments some years ago we were told to base it on what is likely or better yet, base occurances on real numbers. Risk assessments these days seem to be based on the idea that if there is even the slightest possibility of something happening you should prevent it.
I have never heard of anyone being pulled into a leadscrew and if you think about the millions of hours of lathe operations accumulated each year, the accident rate for this would be extremely low - yet it is regarded as likely to happen and hence has to be guarded against. The most common issue I've seen with lathes is the chuck key being left in when the lathe is started. Now the easiest way to prevent that if you want to be technical about it is to have a holder for the key with an interlock on that will not allow the motor to power up without the key being in the socket. Never seen it done. Instead a swing down chuck guard is required.

Having had that rant, there is some worthwhile stuff in that PDF although I think has been written by people who don't use lathes.

Michael

[simonl]

Risk assessments these days seem to be based on the idea that if there is even the slightest possibility of something happening you should prevent it.
Michael

Hi Michael,

my understanding is that it more hinges around the "usual" matrix of consequences versus the likelihood. So, WRT leadscrew entanglement, if the consequences of it happening are major injury or death AND the likelihood of it occuring are high then I would expect an employer to perhaps look into the heirachy of control measures to mitigate the risk of injury.

I agree that we have gotten over the top in some cases with OH&S, but everyone has the right to come home from work alive.

Simon

[.RC.]

Hitting a solid object while travelling at 100kph will result in a 100% fatal death for a human... Yet government themselves allow with their blessing people to do just this enmasse resulting in approximately 2000 deaths a year plus tens of thousands of injuries a year.

It puts how important OHS really is in the eyes of people and government...

I have had my shirt catch in the feed screw of a my AL1000C many years ago... I did not notice it until it started getting tight.. The foot brake resulted in the stopping of the incident.... This would be rare to happen in industry as their lathes are much bigger and thus the aprons are much bigger and the operator usually stands behind the apron.. To me the biggest safety item a lathe should have is a foot switch/brake..

We are a risk averse community these days, and progression has slowed because of it..

I read somewhere a very very safety consious company with a vast bureaucratic culture on OHS was having trouble with increasing workplace accidents.... The fact was all the good employees they had got sick of the OHS crap they had to put up with and as such the company got left with only the less "talented" working for them, the less "talented" were more prone to having accidents regardless of how strict OHS was...

[Michael G]

my understanding is that it more hinges around the "usual" matrix of consequences versus the likelihood. So, WRT leadscrew entanglement, if the consequences of it happening are major injury or death AND the likelihood of it occuring are high then I would expect an employer to perhaps look into the heirachy of control measures to mitigate the risk of injury.

I agree that we have gotten over the top in some cases with OH&S, but everyone has the right to come home from work alive.

Employers have very little say when there are publications like these out there because the lawyers will pounce on that as evidence of what "best practice" is. In the case of leadscrew entanglement I think the likelihood of it happening are very low but if I removed them from a lathe I would be removing safety guarding (which in most places is a sackable offence). If something did happen then I would be gone for all money, even if the likelihood was 1 in 10 million of it occurring. (On the other hand if the guards had never been fitted and something happened it would probably be expressed as a "freak 1 in 10 million accident") In the case of work it would have been far better if a risk assessment was done first and it was concluded that the guarding was not necessary because of the use/ users/ type of work etc.

I certainly want to come home from work alive and wish the same for my co-workers, but have concerns when I see Safety-ist propaganda like this peddled because it means we are allowing individuals to not be responsible for their own well being as well as moving the workplace safety debate from the workplace into an office somewhere run by people who haven't got first hand experience on how equipment is operated.
The net result is things run the risk of becoming less safe as there is firstly an assumption that workers don't have to think as things have been made "safe" coupled with the occasional ridiculous measure that everyone sees as a joke/ stupid/ un-necessary, giving rise to worthwhile safety measures being given less consideration.

We had one at a previous employer - a "safety bulletin" was circulated around about an office worker who's chair had collapsed. Now reading between the lines the guy was overweight and it was a cheap chair. However, the recommendations were regular "chair inspections" and individuals who were above average weight should consult with their OH&S reps about suitable office furniture. Now knowing that, am I less likely or more likely to bother to read or take the next safety bulletin seriously?


Michael

[simonl]

Yes, OH&S is a very fine balancing act muddied and confussed by many individuals who either go too far, not enough or (in some cases) use it as a tool to gain industrial leverage.

A few weeks ago I got roped into the role of Health & safety rep at our work location. I'm yet to do the course (I'm enroled for later this year) but I am already finding it a fine line to tread. Some see the role as a way of getting stuck into management, I see it as a means of making sure staff and management find a sensible approach and solutions to any issues. To further complicate things, we also have a large volunteer workforce. While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act, they still need to be heard and so come to me with issues.

It's a fine line between being reasonable and being firm about safety.

Simon

[.RC.]

While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act,

Pretty sure they are these days.... Or at least they are now in Qld with the harmonised national OHS laws..

[ian]

Light red, the colour of choice for the discerning man.don't you mean "magenta"?

[ian]

Hi Michael,

my understanding is that it more hinges around the "usual" matrix of consequences versus the likelihood. So, WRT leadscrew entanglement, if the consequences of it happening are major injury or death AND the likelihood of it occuring are high then I would expect an employer to perhaps look into the heirachy of control measures to mitigate the risk of injury.

I agree that we have gotten over the top in some cases with OH&S, but everyone has the right to come home from work alive.

Simonthe key word is usually "ensure" -- in that the employer will "ensure" that the work place is safe.

"ensure" is a very tough standard to meet, and if you sit in a chair marked "go to gaol" if something really bad happens at work, you sometimes get ultra cautious.

[BobL]

. . . .. To further complicate things, we also have a large volunteer workforce. While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act, they still need to be heard and so come to me with issues.

As a volunteer at RSL Care (high care aged retirement facility) for just one hour a week I have to abide by all OHS regs same as applies to their employees

I also had to do 4 hours training, one hour each of the following which included a 10 minute test for each one
1. Fire safety. This one is worth doing.
2: Lifting and manual handling, how to lift a cardboard box, "bend ze news"
3, Bio safety - how to wash your hands and not transfer germs
4. How to treat senior citizen and avoid getting sued for elder abuse.

I had done 1 and 2 before at my previous workplace but I had to do these again anyway

I'm not permitted to touch/assist a resident (I need to do another course for that) so I can't even help a resident even get up out of a chair

[Mobyturns]

As a volunteer at RSL Care (high care aged retirement facility) for just one hour a week I have to abide by all OHS regs same as applies to their employees

I also had to do 4 hours training, one hour each of the following which included a 10 minute test for each one
1. Fire safety. This one is worth doing.
2: Lifting and manual handling, how to lift a cardboard box, "bend ze news"
3, Bio safety - how to wash your hands and not transfer germs
4. How to treat senior citizen and avoid getting sued for elder abuse.

I had done 1 and 2 before at my previous workplace but I had to do these again anyway

I'm not permitted to touch/assist a resident (I need to do another course for that) so I can't even help a resident even get up out of a chair

Bob,
That's because the RSL is a PCBU and all volunteers are "workers" under the WHS legislation.

[Mobyturns]

........ To further complicate things, we also have a large volunteer workforce. While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act, they still need to be heard and so come to me with issues.

It's a fine line between being reasonable and being firm about safety.

Simon


OHS reps have clear cut responsibilities to consult with workers & the PCBU to have the PCBU implement "reasonably practicable" procedures - taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters. You also need to check out if "roping you into the role" complies with the act - safety reps must be elected by the "work group." There is also a 3 month window for the PCBU to provide the safety rep training after the request is made.

The way the legislation is written it defines a PCBU & "work" i.e. performing a task for a business or undertaking. There is no distinction about whether the task or "work" performed for a PCBU is by paid or unpaid individuals - volunteers. They are all "workers" under the legislation if the organization is deemed to be a PCBU (see below).

A couple of key terms for you -

Person conducting a business or undertaking(PCBU)A person conducting a business or undertaking(PCBU) is the main duty holder under the WHSAct. They are usually the employer and may be a partnership, company, unincorporated body or association, a sole trader, a government department or statutory authority. A volunteer organisation is a PCBU if it employs one or more paid workers.

Worker - A worker is a person who carries out work for a PCBU in any capacity, including as a volunteer.

The Qld Act defines (remember it is now national standardized legislation so all states will be similar.)

Worker - A person is a worker if the person carries out work in any capacity for a person conducting a business or undertaking, including work as — an employee, .... volunteer ...

Workplace - A workplace is a place where work is carried out for a business or undertaking ...."

The act states "A volunteer association does not conduct a business or undertaking for the purposes of this Act" however the nature of that exemption changes when the volunteer association "employs any person to carry out work for the volunteer association".

Not for profit associations and their "volunteer officers" are exposed to higher risk if they start "employing" staff and do not discharge their duties as a PCBU - i.e. paying a member on an hourly basis to conduct beginners classes; or similar. I left an Association over this very matter (paying a volunteer who then becomes a worker, the association becomes a PCBU etc.) and other health and safety issues that left me personally high & dry as an officer of the Association. I would never approve such payment/employment and personally could no longer trust fellow officers of that association.

In my opinion all "not for profit associations" and volunteer organisations should adopt the principles of hazard analysis and risk management and comply with work place legislation. By doing so they can clearly demonstrate due diligence in protecting their members and volunteers from harm and significantly reduce potential liability for both the association and its "volunteer officers." Morally officers of not for profits should ensure machinery is safe & that guards are in place and remain in place etc purely to protect their colleagues from harm.

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/model-whs-laws/guidance/volunteers/Documents/Volunteers_Guide.pdf

http://volunteeringqld.org.au/web/documents/WHS%20for%20involving%20volunteers.pdf

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WorkHSA11.pdf

Hope this assists you to understand how volunteers fit the "worker" definition under the act.

[simonl]

I understand what you are all saying regarding OH&S laws and the definition of "workers" however these are all state based laws. Originally Victoria were to change the laws to recognise ALL volunteers as workers from 1st Jan 2013 but CFA (my employer) argued that it would be impossible to implement in that time from for their 60,000 volunteers. So, it has been postphoned to another (yet to be determined) date. As such, the only volunteers who are represented by a HSR are volunteers who happen to volunteer at a station that has fulltime staff. Volunteers who are members of a 100% volunteer fire station do not and are not entitled to a HSR under current victorian law.

It's a backward approach and I can't wait for it to come into line with other states.

http://www.ohsrep.org.au/law-rights/ohs-legislation/the-ohs-act/volunteers-in-the-workplace

When I say I was roped into it, I mean I was "encouraged" to allow myself to be nominated. I was hesitant since I had not fulfilled the role before but it looks like it's going to be an interesting experience.

Simon

[Auskart]

OH&S is a joke in NSW , you can't go into a scrap metal yard and look for off cuts etc, but you can walk around a car wreckers with cars stacked up that could fall on you.

[eskimo]

The most common issue I've seen with lathes is the chuck key being left in when the lathe is started. Now the easiest way to prevent that if you want to be technical about it is to have a holder for the key with an interlock on that will not allow the motor to power up without the key being in the socket.l

Hey you took my idea that I thought of when I did it...and it hurt:~

[simonl]

One of my gripes with my employer is they write up all these SOP's (standard operating procedures) and expect that they have fulfilled their responsibilities and put the responsibility but on their workers. Unfortunately sometimes they are just unworkable under certain circumstances.

Example: to enter a burning structure, we need minimum 4 personnel on the fireground. Two in breathing apparatus, a pump operater and an incident controller. Most would argue this is a minimum, it's far from optimal.

Yet our minimum manning on station is 3. So if we turn up to a structure fire at 3:00am and there are people reported missing, what are we expected to do? Tell them to hold therir breath, find a cool spot and wait for a volunteer who has BA quals. to turn up? No of course not, human nature dictates that we will do our best with what we have, so we ignore the SOP. Now lets just say that the roof collapses and we are injured, how convenient for the employer to say we should have waited and followed out SOP's!:((

Simon

[Mobyturns]

but CFA (my employer) argued that it would be impossible to implement in that time from for their 60,000 volunteers.


Simon good to see you are informed about your particular situation. Vic still is going it alone. Its hard (impossible?) for CFA and other similar organisations that rely heavily upon volunteers to provide a "safe workplace" given the nature of the emergency events that become the volunteer's workplace. However they should be providing the training for "safe systems of work" to skill their volunteers appropriately which they do. They should also continuously review the systems of work & the workplace environments to ensure they maintain their obligations to volunteers & workers.

One court case up here in Townsville found the officers of a gymnastics association failed in their WHS obligations to "other persons."

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/96508/review-investigation-tga-death.pdf
http://www.mslawyers.com.au/Downloadable%20files/Liability%20of%20Sporting%20Bodies.pdf

[simonl]

Hi Moby,

I suspect I have a lot to learn and look forward to doing the course. The argument that CFA cannot provide a safe workplace to their volunteers because of the nature of what they do is a convenient one at best. While we rely heavily on PPC which is a last resort under the heirachy of control measures, this is due to the nature of our work. We still enjoy (statistically) one of the safest workplaces. This is due in part to our training, systems of work, SOP's, maintained fitness standards and the strigent selection process before getting into the job ensuring the people they employ are best suited to the environment they work.

The resistance to include volunteers as workers under the worplace act comes not only from CFA but also the body that represents CFA's volunteers. To quote spiderman… With great power comes great responsibility. I suspect they fear that with such a change, volunteers will also be open to procecusion under such an act if they fail in their responsibilities as "workers" Big deal I say, I face that possibility every day but I don't really think about it, I just work safely and look after the safety of myself and my fellow workers.

I believe that CFA are worried that such an ownus or responsibility placed on their volunteers will scare many away and their already dwindling volunteer numbers will further be reduced. But for volunteers to have the tools to work safely, they will need proper training and proper PPC. Most of which have this but not all do and so it will put further pressure on CFA to provide better training and equipment to their volunteers, as they should.

In the past, our employer from time to time have supplied us with equipment that has been idetified as having some safety issues. Mostly these get sorted out through our representative body and either a compromise is reached, or it goes to arbitration to be ruled on. On other occasions they have just taken it off us and given it to a volunteer station to use, even if a PIN has been issued on it. Sufice to say, most of the time these volunteers are non the wiser as to the history or reason why they got this new equipment. My employer will no longer be able to do this if volunteers are included in the workplace legislation.

Sorry, so far off topic it's not funny.

Simon

[Mobyturns]

Simon I have a good mate who has been a training officer in the fire service and is an inspector now. I'm a surveyor with over 30 years experience & have worked for many years in plenty of very remote areas and have had to be largely self reliant with only myself and a chainman. So I have a pretty good understanding the hazards & issues you guys face & I'm very thankful that there are volunteers who will step up.

What you say about perceived liability vs actual liability is a problem for many volunteer associations and it does scare people off from volunteering. When it becomes an actual liability from not ensuring machinery is compliant or not discharging the duties of a PCBU as it was in my case you simply must walk away.

[simonl]

When it becomes an actual liability from not ensuring machinery is compliant or not discharging the duties of a PCBU as it was in my case you simply must walk away.

Not always easy to do when you're working for an emergency service.

Simon

[.RC.]

One court case up here in Townsville found the officers of a gymnastics association failed in their WHS obligations to "other persons."

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/96508/review-investigation-tga-death.pdf
http://www.mslawyers.com.au/Downloadable%20files/Liability%20of%20Sporting%20Bodies.pdf

Wow the deceased was doing illegal drugs, kids moved the mats and the business is still liable...

Like I say we are now a risk adverse country... But strangely killing 2000 people a year on the roads is all OK..

[RayG]

But strangely killing 2000 people a year on the roads is all OK..

I don't think anyone accepts that 2000 road deaths a year is "OK", just look at the huge efforts put into various road safety campaigns. As far as penalties go, the provisions for things like manslaughter, culpable driving etc, you can go to jail for a very long time. Culpable driving causing death has a maximum penalty of 20 years jail. ( I looked it up )

What I find curious is the amount of increased attention given to OH&S after the changes to the law, which made company directors liable. All of a sudden it's number one priority. :)

Ray

[.RC.]

I don't think anyone accepts that 2000 road deaths a year is "OK", just look at the huge efforts put into various road safety campaigns.

True, but if they were serious reducing the speed limit to 80kph everywhere would stop a lot of deaths as they found out during WW2 when speed limits were lowered to conserve fuel...

This is the paradox of OHS.... An individual is told something is dangerous and prosecuted, when they could point out the roads and prove how easy it would be to reduce risk and ask why are they exempt from OHS regulations?

I am waiting for the day the government is sued through OHS laws by a person who has had a car accident.

[RayG]

I was once involved in installing a system to automatically regulate forklift speeds, the system had RFID tags buried in the floor which told the forklift what speed to set the governor to, in pedestrian areas with mixed traffic, like loading areas where you had truck drivers and such mixed with forklift traffic, the speed limit was 5 kph, in other areas where pedestrian traffic was prohibited the limit was 8 kph.

And yet, you could walk out of the same factory, and at the front door there is a pedestrian crossing with cars doing 60 kph within feet of unprotected pedestrian traffic..., and no safety barriers and no hi-vis clothing... the contrast between one environment and the other is stark. We live with double standards.

Ray

[simonl]

I am waiting for the day the government is sued through OHS laws by a person who has had a car accident.

I have attended many motor vehicle collisions. Most are not as a result of an accident. They are invariably the result of somone doing the wrong thing. They are an incident, not a accident.

Within the capacity of my occupation I frequently exceed the posted speed limit, drive through red traffic control signals, drive on the wrong side of the road, and fail to stop at stop signs. In 17 years I have never been involved in a collision. I have however recieved extensive driver training and my situational awareness is probably better than most. Reducing the speed limit is only one part of the picture in making our roads safer. Peoples attitudes seems to be the biggest issue.

Simon

[.RC.]

We live with double standards.

Ray

Exactly what I mean Ray.. I do not want speed limits reduced, but at the same token where I am here should I employ anyone it would mean an instant trip to jail with mandatory sessions with Bubba as punishment...

Not that it is dangerous here, but a person whose only exposure to what they perceive as danger is an errant photocopier that randomly spits paper at people would think that where I am here is an extremely dangerous place... And to that sort of person it probably is as they have no concept of danger any more.. They would walk along a street and fall down an easy to see hole and automatically blame someone else as they think they should not have to see danger, danger should just not be there in their mind...

[RayG]

Exactly what I mean Ray.. I do not want speed limits reduced, but at the same token where I am here should I employ anyone it would mean an instant trip to jail with mandatory sessions with Bubba as punishment...

Not that it is dangerous here, but a person whose only exposure to what they perceive as danger is an errant photocopier that randomly spits paper at people would think that where I am here is an extremely dangerous place... And to that sort of person it probably is as they have no concept of danger any more.. They would walk along a street and fall down an easy to see hole and automatically blame someone else as they think they should not have to see danger, danger should just not be there in their mind...

The danger there is that the casual visitor would be so shocked by sight of the pink Monarch, and walk straight into a running G&L HBM :)

The safety world is a strange place these days, it's no longer acceptable to rely on people's experience and common sense. I know of an example where a fuel tanker driver caused an incident because he forgot the parking brakes while running petrol to fill an underground petrol tank. The investigation concluded that it ought not be possible to open the fuel valves unless the brakes were engaged, so flip over guards were installed on the fleet to automatically engage the brakes when the guard was lifted to access the fuel discharge points. The next problem that arose was the incident where the flip over system failed and the brakes came on while the tanker was driving down the road. And so it goes, one fix leads to another problem and the fix for an unsafe act creates another unsafe situation... at some point you have to rely on people not being completely stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making the workplace as safe as possible... so long as it's not just a case of moving the problem elsewhere. :D

Ray

[Toggy]

Simon,

Aren't the general public "wonderful"http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/smilies/standard/rolleyes.gif when the lights and bells go on. Most have NFI.

Ray,

How do you protect DH's from themselves. Let them be culled by their own actions from the gene pool I say. Where else would we get the Darwin Award nominees from.

Yes, an employer should be required to provide a safe workplace; but the employee should have to provide common sense. Trouble is that nobody is held responsible for their own actions.

Ken

[Stustoys]

lol sliding down the road all locked up in a tanker would sure wake you up.

At the risk of going more than a little OT and without going to to stories about former employers I offer couple of car safety related stories.

In my ancap 5 star VF, you cant take the handbrake off without having your foot on the brake.. that would be unsafe right? and we couldn't have that!............ ok fair enough.......... guess what happens when you hit the accelerator while the handbrake is on?

Talking about self culling of the gene pool. I think this video and its comments say much about the world we live in :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzMTvgx3R5I


Stuart

[Belair_boy]

... at some point you have to rely on people not being completely stupid.

You can't make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious! :rolleyes:

[Aussie Bruce]

Gentlemen there are a number of issues in play here

1 In regards to the Victorian Guidance note / flyer which is attached is basically to give an employer some semblance of idea of what the risks of a lathe are, there are too many cases of managers . owners of companies that have inherited a factory with one of these monsters down the back and sent some numpty down that has seen a mate use one

2 this guidance note was introduced as a direct result of a decapitation involving a 3/8 bar hanging out the back of a lathe running at top speed yep it happened

3 there had been a de gloving incident as well regarding a lead screw it happened

4 there are a lot of educated safety professionals that have never seen a machine shop before coming through the education system manual machines are an an anathema i.e. what do you mean you open the door stick the piece of steel in and it drops out a shute at the bottom doesn't it ?

5 The trade is dead to most people now it has not been taught in secondary school in Victoria for some twenty years or longer so from my perspective at least they got off there backside and put some recommendations down on paper.

These accidents will continue to happen and maybe happen more frequently now as more and more lathes are disposed of at auctions etc as the manufacturing base crumbels but I'm not sure how the authorities will handle that one when a death occurs
Even Machinery house offer schools pack lathes with lead screw and chuck cover additions

I don't know where it all will lead but one thing is for certain

We aint heard the last of this one

Bruce

[Mobyturns]

Gentlemen there are a number of issues in play here

1 In regards to the Victorian Guidance note / flyer which is attached is basically to give an employer some semblance of idea of what the risks of a lathe are, there are too many cases of managers . owners of companies that have inherited a factory with one of these monsters down the back and sent some numpty down that has seen a mate use one

2 this guidance note was introduced as a direct result of a decapitation involving a 3/8 bar hanging out the back of a lathe running at top speed yep it happened

3 there had been a de gloving incident as well regarding a lead screw it happened

4 there are a lot of educated safety professionals that have never seen a machine shop before coming through the education system manual machines are an an anathema i.e. what do you mean you open the door stick the piece of steel in and it drops out a shute at the bottom doesn't it ?

5 The trade is dead to most people now it has not been taught in secondary school in Victoria for some twenty years or longer so from my perspective at least they got off there backside and put some recommendations down on paper.

These accidents will continue to happen and maybe happen more frequently now as more and more lathes are disposed of at auctions etc as the manufacturing base crumbels but I'm not sure how the authorities will handle that one when a death occurs
Even Machinery house offer schools pack lathes with lead screw and chuck cover additions

I don't know where it all will lead but one thing is for certain

We aint heard the last of this one

Bruce

Then there was Michelle Dufault's death in 2011 from asphyxiation in a Yale University laboratory after her hair became entangled in a lathe very late at night while she was working alone.

The lathe was an older model missing some guards that are now mandatory on lathes; she had a safety induction etc, but the system of work failed to protect her. Yale Uni walked away & escaped any penalty for not guarding machinery because the OSHA basically had no jurisdiction over an educational workshop / laboratory because there was no employer-employee relationship (student).

http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2011/08/osha-vs-yale-on-michele-dufaults-death-also-a-note-about-round-ups/

[Hunch]

I don't think the road toll has been 2000 in Oz for some decades! Injuries due to mv crashes in NSW alone are over 25,000 though, say 100,000 pa aust wide. Does seem odd, lethal danger has been normalised, yet I've seen signs on trivial workplace issues anyone with an IQ above freezing should recognize - and have nearly no consequences if ignored.

[A Duke]

:doh: Every fool proof device just breeds a new type of fool.
:)

[simonl]

I don't think the road toll has been 2000 in Oz for some decades! Injuries due to mv crashes in NSW alone are over 25,000 though, say 100,000 pa aust wide. Does seem odd, lethal danger has been normalised, yet I've seen signs on trivial workplace issues anyone with an IQ above freezing should recognize - and have nearly no consequences if ignored.

I remember speaking to a particular punter (after a minor collision) and he said he thought air bags were no good. His reasoning was because statistically the injury rate had gone up considerably since their introduction into mainstream vehicles. I told him this was because all those extra injuries would have been deaths.

Reading some of the posts here, I do feel rather lucky when it comes to co-workers and their attitude towards safety. Most people I work with are very safety conscious but don't expect silly procedures and engineering systems to remove the need to have common sense.

Simon

[Grahame Collins]

the key word is usually "ensure" -- in that the employer will "ensure" that the work place is safe.

"ensure" is a very tough standard to meet, and if you sit in a chair marked "go to gaol" if something really bad happens at work, you sometimes get ultra cautious.

Tell me about it?
Ensure and Duty of care that goes along with it

One of the reasons I gave teaching away was the mindset of some of the students. A lathe related example was a student who sat through the lathe safety theory lesson, passed the written theory safety test, and did an hour of lathe practice under my direct supervision.

In those sessions despite numerous mentions of the hazardous practice of leaving the lathe key in the chuck - without the operators hand on it, this student still managed to press the start button on the lathe and then attempted to grab the key as it swung around in the lathe.
I was not held to be responsible as I had did all possible to ensure this boy was safe on the lathe. I had documentation for the training but some one who didn't, could well end up in a court given the right set of circumstances.

Naturally his hand was crushed against the vee bedway. Actual amputation was prevented by a stop block being in the right position to catch the tee handle. That was five years ago and I still have that image in my head.
With some individuals it matters little to what systems and equipment are provided, unless the individual has the personal self awareness there is not a lot a supervisor can do, short of removing those individuals who demonstrate the lack of willingness to show any degree of self protection - from the workplace.

Safety starts with the individual making it their business to wear the PPE. I have lost count of the workshops I have been where simple safety glasses are seen everywhere but not covering eyes where they are meant to be as advised by the OH &S placards all over the shop.
I won't speak for others but in the metalworking/fabrication circles I have worked in many of the floor workers are their own worst enemy as far as safety goes.

Grahame

I concede there as some poorly performing bosses but in the main the people on the floor let them selves down Re OH &S performance.

[.RC.]

I concede there as some poorly performing bosses but in the main the people on the floor let them selves down Re OH &S performance.

But the bosses get the blame...

I heard a story where a person got told not to ride a motorbike to work as the trip to and from work is classed as being at work thus covered by OHS and motorbikes were seen as dangerous...

And then there was the documented case where Telstra was sued for OHS violations after an employee working from her own house, fell down the stairs. http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/landmark-case-may-affect-flexible-work-arrangements-109135.aspx

[RayG]

My favorite safety story is of the multinational company who sent out hundreds of safety posters to branch offices around Australia to mark the start of a big safety campaign, the poster was a plastic wall hanging that came tightly rolled up in a cardboard tube, when you unrolled the poster it would spring back and several people reported getting cut on the sharp edges as it snapped back... so an urgent message went out from head office...

"Don't open the safety poster it's a safety hazard" .... and all the posters were recalled.

Dangerous things safety campaigns.. :D

I'll leave it to Phil to tell the story of the gas detector and safe working practices in confined spaces.

Ray

[Jekyll and Hyde]

But the bosses get the blame...

I heard a story where a person got told not to ride a motorbike to work as the trip to and from work is classed as being at work thus covered by OHS and motorbikes were seen as dangerous...

And then there was the documented case where Telstra was sued for OHS violations after an employee working from her own house, fell down the stairs. http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/landmark-case-may-affect-flexible-work-arrangements-109135.aspx

I hadn't seen that one before. Truly mind blowing.

Here's a good one for contemplation, on the topic of current OHS regs - Worksafe states, and my employers SWMS also states, that 3 points of contact must be maintained when ascending or descending a ladder. As far as I can work out, that means I can't carry anything up or down the ladder...

[Grahame Collins]

current OHS regs - Worksafe states, and my employers SWMS also states, that 3 points of contact must be maintained when ascending or descending a ladder. As far as I can work out, that means I can't carry anything up or down the ladder...

The very same rule applied in the 1970's when I worked in the Alumina refinery.

Its not rocket science to work out a tool bag is a good idea. Climb up the ladder with a coil of rope over the shoulder and you let it down and your work partner tied it to the bag and taped out the area underneath. We always worked with 2 or more fitters. All walkways and platforms had kickboards installed so nothing was accidentally booted over the edge anyway.

A job safe practice was conducted before work was started to plan and organise the job taking into account tag outs, possible hazards and procedure etc.

Safety is common sense and common sense does not come easily to some.

I'll add that if ladder work is required the employer should be supplying the bag and the rope.The bags we used were canvas and adequate for the majority of jobs.

Grahame

[bwal74]

I hadn't seen that one before. Truly mind blowing.

Here's a good one for contemplation, on the topic of current OHS regs - Worksafe states, and my employers SWMS also states, that 3 points of contact must be maintained when ascending or descending a ladder. As far as I can work out, that means I can't carry anything up or down the ladder...


I did the working at heights course last year. The company that ran the course said ladders are the most dangerous items on all workplaces and are generally being phased out of the work place. Anything over 1 mtr (maybe less) you had to be tethered in, or in cherry picker or a platform ladder.

On another note, I was using the bench grinder and drill press yesterday. Nearly forgot to put my safetys on when grinding(on top of my head) and left the drill chuck in the chuck when turning on at main power - the drill was on the ON position. The little drill chuck gave me a good old fright as it flew past my head.

I believe in WHS but also believe in one's own responsibility. I also think a lot of people are making a heap of money of WHS.

Ben.

[Mobyturns]

I won't speak for others but in the metalworking/fabrication circles I have worked in many of the floor workers are their own worst enemy as far as safety goes.

I concede there as some poorly performing bosses but in the main the people on the floor let them selves down Re OH &S performance.



On another note, I was using the bench grinder and drill press yesterday. Nearly forgot to put my safetys on when grinding(on top of my head) and left the drill chuck in the chuck when turning on at main power - the drill was on the ON position. The little drill chuck gave me a good old fright as it flew past my head.

I believe in WHS but also believe in one's own responsibility. I also think a lot of people are making a heap of money of WHS.

Ben.

They are only making money because there is an increasing requirement & need for safety training. Some of the responses above reinforce that argument including yours.

In your case a simple methodical routine to start up & shut down machines correctly & to check the machine before turning on the mains power would greatly reduce risk. Even better an engineered control built into the ON/OFF switch to prevent unintended (not accidental) start up if the machine is incorrectly switched off or after a mains power fail. The switches are common & mandatory in workplaces but not on hobby machines. Why? The manufacturer can save money - do they care about your safety? or would you pay a few extra dollars to purchase a machine with one? Even a quality high impact face shield as PPE may reduce the severity of a potential injury from a flying chuck key. You were wearing a face shield weren't you? Safety spectacles at least? I'm not being a SA here. A more holistic approach to task safety keeps us "safer". When one element of our safety routine fails for what ever reason we have routines or processes to help identify the stuff up, or to offer at least some measure of protection for when we do stuff up. We all stuff up at some point!

Instilling a safety culture sounds very daunting but all it really means is developing processes and routines that encourage, a worker or a hobbyist, to methodically approach tasks, to take a moment to plan tasks and think about what steps are involved, how the plan the sequence of tasks, what they are about to do and what may happen IF something unplanned occurs! It also means forcing parties who are unwilling to do "the right thing" to actually comply with a minimum standard, whether that be a standard of conduct for a boss, a worker, a visitor to a workplace or a design or manufacturing standard for manufacturers.

These "things" are not "common sense" - that term is pure BS, there is no such thing as "common sense." There is common learning taught but as we all know to well common knowledge and common experience is not so common. Sadly the common learning part is failing us miserably as secondary, post secondary and tertiary teaching institutions and work places are becoming obsessively risk averse as they focus less on practical learning and look to remove all risk from manual tasks. There is a cost of being obsessively risk averse too!

Every thing we do carries an element of risk. Hazards exist, some things are "inherently dangerous" only because we permit or tolerate the level of risk. Safety is only about control and management of hazards and risk for the individual and common good. Its a system to identify hazards, prioritize risk, and to eliminate fatal or catastrophic outcomes then manage lower risks - that is all it is. No one likes to get injured, maimed or killed and some of us would rather not have our medical & hospital systems tied up with avoidable injuries.

Lastly we are fallible, forgetful, over confident, casual, complacent ....... and easily distracted. People are their own worst enemy when it comes to task safety as I prefer to call it when talking about hobby or non paid work pursuits. We stuff up, it may not be often, but it can be an unwanted adrenaline rush or worse when we do. We can however stack the odds well in our favor by implementing following prudent safe task practices.

[.RC.]

Of course when a business gets shut down as OHS rules force them to move off shore to a country with less OHS rules and just imports the goods, when a former employee gets made redundant because of this, then cannot find another job as there is nothing suitable for them, then they fall into depression and commit suicide that is not counted as a "safety issue" even though in reality it is...

[Jekyll and Hyde]

Safety is common sense and common sense does not come easily to some.


It's common sense that it takes 2 people to change a globe in a fluoro?

Nominate me for the Darwin award now then.

[eskimo]

that 3 points of contact must be maintained when ascending or descending a ladder. As far as I can work out, that means I can't carry anything up or down the ladder...

Same as one of my customers...must also wear a hard hat while accending and decending.. and must keep it on while on the roof ...low flying pelicans or something I reckon

also, the thermostats installed at their premises are a tad too high for myself to get to see wiring terminals so one day I used my 3 foot steps and was standing on the first rung from the floor (thats about 12inches from the floor) and the OHSW officer blasted me for not wearing a hard hat...inside the office...apparently I can use one of these though

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4QMomMey74_rePd7u_F2sZ5OL-1iPO0HVF0aDBYQU-NleJ_xBKg
without a hard hat.

[sacc51]

Unfortunately there is no 'in between' in anything these days, it's all or nothing. But the bottom line is: everybody has a right to work in safe environment and go home at the end of the day in one piece. Better too many silly rules than none at all!

[.RC.]

Back to lathes...

Things I have had happen....

HSS tools breaking and flying off at mach2.54

Workpiece flying out of chuck and being launched into low earth orbit.

late one night needed to do a lathe job without shoes on.... Raked some stringy swarf across a toe and got a nasty cut.

shirt in feedscrew.

and that is about it and all those things happened a fair while ago.. The more lathe work I have done the more learned I have become about things..

[bwal74]

Unfortunately there is no 'in between' in anything these days, it's all or nothing. But the bottom line is: everybody has a right to work in safe environment and go home at the end of the day in one piece. Better too many silly rules than none at all!

I disagree about the too many silly rules, you just end up paying off all the rules and miss the good rules. Common sense and personal responsibility should apply.

Ben.

[welder]

I don't know my work is a WHS nightmare, Some rules are just silly a case in point a guy at my Tafe ripped his tendon from his hand, on a drillpress because it was mandatory site policy that gloves are to be worn at all times and guess what his glove got caught :no:

[brendanh]

Same as one of my customers...must also wear a hard hat while accending and decending.. and must keep it on while on the roof ...low flying pelicans or something I reckon

also, the thermostats installed at their premises are a tad too high for myself to get to see wiring terminals so one day I used my 3 foot steps and was standing on the first rung from the floor (thats about 12inches from the floor) and the OHSW officer blasted me for not wearing a hard hat...inside the office...apparently I can use one of these though

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4QMomMey74_rePd7u_F2sZ5OL-1iPO0HVF0aDBYQU-NleJ_xBKg
without a hard hat.
The other day i was at work, was early morning so not everyone was onsite yet, small job anyway, i was in a corner on my own. No one around me within 20m or more. I was working on my bench and i took my hard hat off and placed it right next to me. Had gloves and glasses on. Well the builder seem me and made a big issue about me not having my hat on and wanted to send me for a reinduction. I really dont get it somtimes. Yes i understand the site requires you to have ppe on at all times but come on. Half the time i dont even see a need for hardhats fullstop.

[Grahame Collins]

I don't know my work is a WHS nightmare, Some rules are just silly a case in point a guy at my Tafe ripped his tendon from his hand, on a drillpress because it was mandatory site policy that gloves are to be worn at all times and guess what his glove got caught :no:

I taught the basic OH&S module enough times to tell you its almost engrained into students .If a machine tool is rotating,you keep any clothing including gloves and unbuttoned shirt sleeves away.The kid with a ripped tendon has grounds for a lawsuit on the grounds of on pis poor advice.

The other side of the coin is that if the same bloke felt using gloves on a drill press was unsafe why on earth, did he go ahead with what he should have a perceived as a unsafe act. I also shudder to think about the same blanket rule on the use of gloves while running a bench grinder on that same site. As part of the same module it was always taught if you were not happy with a situation do not not proceed, take it up higher.Better to lose a job than a finger anyway.

I can't believe a trained safety officer would institute such an insane policy- they would leave themselves wide open for some major grief.
Such a directive could only come from an untrained uncertified numby. Some sites would not tolerate nonsense like that and justifiably call a union meeting. What happened to the safety theory where we taught -assess the hazard? For sure,this donkey was not a safety officer.

Its the same thinking as some of the you tube- how to do it experts - where they wear gloves while using an angle grinder without a guard or a handle.

As I keep saying you can't teach common sense.

[Steamwhisperer]

I taught the basic OH&S module enough times to tell you its almost engrained into students .If a machine tool is rotating,you keep any clothing including gloves and unbuttoned shirt sleeves away.The kid with a ripped tendon has grounds for a lawsuit on the grounds of on pis poor advice.

The other side of the coin is that if the same bloke felt using gloves on a drill press was unsafe why on earth, did he go ahead with what he should have a perceived as a unsafe act. I also shudder to think about the same blanket rule on the use of gloves while running a bench grinder on that same site. As part of the same module it was always taught if you were not happy with a situation do not not proceed, take it up higher.Better to lose a job than a finger anyway.

I can't believe a trained safety officer would institute such an insane policy- they would leave themselves wide open for some major grief.
Such a directive could only come from an untrained uncertified numby. Some sites would not tolerate nonsense like that and justifiably call a union meeting. What happened to the safety theory where we taught -assess the hazard? For sure,this donkey was not a safety officer.

Its the same thinking as some of the you tube- how to do it experts - where they wear gloves while using an angle grinder without a guard or a handle.

As I keep saying you can't teach common sense.
Hi Grahame,
I have been trying real hard to stay out of this discussion as where I work is going through an industrial enema at the moment.
I dared to say out loud that a particular situation was unsafe and managed to get charged with three breaches and received a first written warning for my efforts.
Should I have another breach, dismissal is on the table and seeing as how I am being watched, this comment could be it.
Sadly, my opinion now is to not speak up.
Thankfully, it is not like this at every workplace.

Phil