Welcome back to the second North Durham Safety Ltd Newsletter.
In this edition you will find more important updates from the Health and Safety Executive, prosecution information on companies found in breach of Health and Safety legislation and lots more information that we hope you find relevant to your company.
If you wish, you can download a copy of the newsletter by clicking the button:
- Update from North Durham Safety
- Health and Safety Executive Announce 5 Year Plan
- HSE’S Health Priority Plans
- Occupational lung disease
- Musculoskeletal disorders
- Work-related stress
- Work-related ill health and occupational disease trends in Great Britain
- FEES FOR INTERVENTION – INCREASE
- WHO’S IN THE DOCK
- Telehandler strike costs potato firm £50k
- Trailer company fines after scissor lift fatally close to HGV route
- Pallet manufacturer fined over forklift strike
- Training failures left delivery driver with traumatic brain injury on first day of work
- Port trio docked more than £1.4M for security guard’s fatal HGV crush
- Longstanding failures at refinery that led to fatal explosion costs firms more than £6m
- Driver Safety – Driven to Distraction
- Behavioural Safety – What is it?
- How well do you Know your road signs? Take the 3-minute quiz to find out
- Word Search Quiz
- Answers to the Quiz
Update from North Durham Safety
Welcomes IOSH member ANDREW BROWN having successfully moved up to chartered status (CMIOSH) IOSH the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health is Europe’s largest and most prestigious organisations for Safety and Health Professionals.
Chartered members are recognized within the health and safety profession as meeting the highest standards of skills and knowledge.
After a successful Initial Professional Development programme and Peer Review interview, Andrew now joins Brian McMann who is also a Chartered member of the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health.
Congratulations also goes to CAMERON INNES who has been awarded the NEBOSH certificate in Environmental Management, a globally and professionally recognized qualification.
Health and Safety Executive Announce 5 Year Plan
HSE’s focus over the next 3-5 years is set out in sector. These cover 19 industry sectors and 3 themes on work-related ill health. They have split Great Britain’s workplaces into 19 sectors, based on industry type and risk profile. Sectors range from agriculture, public services, waste and recycling, utilities, explosives, and gas and pipelines, to name but a few.
Having previously reviewed in our 1st edition 3 of the 19 sectors that may or may not have the greatest impact to your business; 1. Logistics and Transport, 2. Construction 3. Manufacturing.
It’s now time in our 2nd edition to look at the HSE’s 3 Health Priority Plans.
HSE’S Health Priority Plans
HSE has set three priorities for work on occupational health
- Occupational lung disease; – Leads to an estimated 12,000 deaths each year. Occupational lung disease plan PDF
- Musculoskeletal disorders; – The most common reported cause of occupational ill health in Great Britain, accounting for 41% of all work-related ill-health cases and 34% of all working days lost due to ill health. Musculoskeletal disorders plan PDF
- Work-related stress; – The second most commonly reported cause of occupational ill health in Great Britain, accounting for 37% of all work-related ill-health cases, and 45% of all working days lost due to ill health. Work-related stress plan PDF
Could this have an impact on your business???
Occupational lung disease
Sector plan for health and safety:
Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive
We want to see:
- Significant improvements in preventing and controlling exposure, especially in construction, manufacturing, quarries, mines, waste and recycling, and agriculture;
- Consultants and product suppliers giving employers advice that is fit for purpose;
Outcomes and priorities
Occupational respiratory disease is currently estimated to result in approximately 12,000 deaths each year.
Estimates from the 2013/14 to 2015/16 Labor Force Survey indicate that around 36,000 people who worked in the previous year (and 141,000 who had ever had a job) reported lung or breathing problems that were caused or made worse by work.
There are an estimated 14,000 new cases of breathing or lung problems caused or made worse by work each year, resulting in at least an estimated 400,000 working days lost.
HSE statistics site: www.hse.gov.uk/statistics
Current position
Occupational lung disease continues to contribute substantially to work-related ill health. It includes a wide range of conditions.
Some of these conditions develop shortly after exposure, such as work-related asthma and legionella infections. Others develop many years later, such as pneumoconiosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung
cancer and pleural mesothelioma – these are life limiting and/or life-altering.
It can occur in most industry sectors and is caused by a wide range of agents, from biological organisms through to dusts, fumes and vapors. Asbestos and respirable crystalline silica (RCS) are particularly substantial contributors to the burden of lung disease.
Health priority plan: Occupational lung disease
- A rise in HSE’s/local authorities’ regulatory profile and cross-industry learning about ‘what works’;
- National, cross-sector leadership on eliminating occupational lung diseases;
- The next generation of workers being educated and empowered to expect better
Musculoskeletal disorders
Sector plan for health and safety:
We want to see:
- Significant improvements in preventing and controlling exposure to MSDs, especially in construction, manufacturing, agriculture, logistics and transport, waste and recycling, and health and social care;
- A shift in emphasis away from manual handling training and towards risk elimination/reduction through design;
Outcomes and priorities
MSDs account for 41% of all ill health cases and 34% of all working days lost due to ill health.
The total number of working days lost in 2015/16 was 8.8 million, with an average of 16 days per case. Of the 539 000 cases, 176 000 were new in that year.
The overall economic cost to Great Britain, based on the latest available estimates, was just over £2 billion.
HSE statistics site: www.hse.gov.uk/statistics
Current position
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are the most commonly reported cause of occupational ill health in Great Britain. They include disorders of the back, upper limbs and lower limbs, the former two being the most common.
MSDs are prevalent in all sectors but agriculture, fisheries, logistics and transport, construction and health and social care have significantly higher than average rates.
Both physical and psychosocial factors can contribute to work-related MSDs, and they can be aggravated by people’s activities outside work and their general health and fitness.
Health priority plan: Musculoskeletal disorders
- A rise in HSE’s/local authorities’ regulatory profile;
- Research, and development of new thinking, on the risks from new, flexible ways of working – such as the ‘always on’ culture, increasingly sedentary work and increased use of screen-based technologies;
- Cross-industry learning about ‘what works
Work-related stress
Sector plan for health and safety:
Outcomes and priorities
We want to see:
- A significant increase in the number of employers taking a proactive (rather than reactive) stance to managing WRS through the Management Standards approach or other suitable risk assessment methodology;
- More HR and health and safety professionals trained and competent to implement Management Standards approaches within their organisations;
WRS accounts for 37% of all ill health cases and 45% of all working days lost due to ill health. The total number of working days lost in 2015/16 was 11.7 million, with an average of 23.9 days per case.
Of the 488 000 cases, 224 000 were new in that year.
The overall economic cost to Great Britain was estimated to be over £5 billion.
HSE stress statistics: www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress
Current position
Work-related stress (WRS) is the second most commonly reported cause of occupational ill health in Great Britain.
While the highest incidence rates are recorded in the public services – education, health and social care, prisons, emergency services, and local and central government – there is increasing evidence that it is becoming a significant problem in other sectors.
When it is prolonged, WRS can lead to mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression, as well as physical conditions. The key stressors most often identified are high workloads, high demands and insufficient support from managers.
Health priority plan: Work-related stress
- Cross-sector learning about ‘what works’;
- Recognition that preventive action on WRS can make a valuable contribution to the wider mental health agenda.
Work-related ill health and occupational disease trends in Great Britain
12,000 Lung disease deaths each year estimated to be linked to past exposure at work
Occupational lung diseases contributing to estimated annual current deaths

Source: Estimates from epidemiological information including burden of occupational cancer research
1.4 million workers suffering from work-related ill health (new or long-standing) in 2017-2018 (LFS)
New and long-standing cases of work-related ill health by type, 2017/18

source: LFS self-reported estimates
Work-related ill health per 100,000 workers – new and long-standing
FEES FOR INTERVENTION - INCREASE
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has increased its Fee For Intervention (FFI) hourly rate from £129 to £154 (almost 20% raise)
This represents a substantial increase and invoices may amount to thousands of pounds If, an HSE inspector finds a material breach of health and safety law, at your business!!!
What impact could this have on your business???
FFI was designed to recover costs incurred by the HSE during regulatory action against organisations that fail to comply with safety and health law, thus transferring the financial burden from the taxpayer to the business.
The new charge came into effect on 6 April and it is the second increase since the scheme was introduced in October 2012. The rate first went up in 2016, from £124.
In a statement, the HSE said this can be attributed in part to the fact that the scheme has operated recently at a deficit.
In 2017/18 the HSE reported a £1.9m loss from running FFI after the £15m it generated from fines to businesses was offset by its operating costs, which totalled almost £17m.
It said: “HSE’s cost recovery rate for FFI will increase to £154 per hour with effect from 6 April 2019. This means that businesses that are found to be in material breach of health and safety law will be charged at this new rate. As now, those businesses that meet their legal requirements will not pay anything for HSE’s regulatory activity.
“HSE must set the FFI rate with the aim of recovering its full cost and in recent years it has operated at a deficit (i.e. cost more than recovered in income). A combination of this and cumulative inflationary pressures support the increased hourly rate.”
A material breach is defined by the HSE as “something which an inspector considers serious enough that they need to formally write to the business requiring action to be taken”.
Speaking to IOSH Magazine, Charlotte O’Kane, associate at law firm Pinsent Masons, said: “The fee was originally £124 per hour to cover inspectors’ time and that went up [in 2016] to £129 per hour, which is a relatively small increase. This is a much more significant jump and duty holders will notice a difference in their FFI invoices given the roughly 20% increase in the hourly rate for HSE inspectors.
“It serves to emphasise the fact that organisations should ensure that they are complying with the law and operating safely. If an HSE inspector finds a material breach of health and safety law, that is now going to be significantly more expensive.”
Under the scheme, the HSE only recovers costs of its regulatory work from non-compliant duty holders found to be in material breach of safety and health law.
The fee covers an inspector’s time spent identifying and resolving the issue, as well as any investigation or enforcement action up to the point where HSE’s intervention has been concluded or a prosecution is started, or in Scotland when a report is submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. It is calculated by multiplying the time spent on FFI activity by the hourly rate.
WHO’S IN THE DOCK
Telehandler strike costs potato firm £50k
A Yorkshire-based company that supplies potatoes to supermarkets and wholesalers nationwide has been sentenced after it failed to separate workers on foot from moving vehicles at its site in Tadcaster, Selby.
Colin Smith, 62, broke his left leg when he was knocked over by a telehandler. Earlier this month his employer, Braegate Produce, was fined £50,000.
He was struck by three potato boxes loaded on the tines of a telehandler that another employee was driving.
During its investigation, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found Braegate Produce had insufficient measures in place to prevent people being struck by moving vehicles.
The well-used pedestrian route that Smith was following to move from the production sheds to the maintenance workshop was not a protected walkway.
Workers on foot were also found to be venturing into areas where vehicles were working due to many boxes that had been stored in the yard.
The company had failed to ensure forklift truck and telehandler operators knew the rules to follow when transporting potato boxes around the site and had not effectively enforced them.
Trailer company fines after scissor lift fatally close to HGV route
Suffolk-based trailer service and breakdown company SPR Trailer Services has been handed a £120,000 penalty for failing to protect an employee who sustained fatal head injuries.
An SPR employee of the defendant was operating a scissor-lift on 23 January 2015 when the mobile platform was hit by a heavy goods vehicle, pitching the employee from the lift basket 1.5 m on to a roadway.
In a report on the inquest into the 67-year-old worker’s death the Ipswich Star said the employee was changing company signs at the entrance to SPR’s main Felixstowe site, near the roadway, when the scissor lift was clipped by a 12 m curtain-sided trailer, tipping it over. The report said the employee was airlifted to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge but died two days later.
Pallet manufacturer fined over forklift strike
A manufacturer of wooden products has been sentenced after a worker was struck by a forklift truck at its site on Woodford Park Industrial Estate in Winsford, Cheshire.
Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court was told that Mid Cheshire Pallets had failed to provide adequate segregation between pedestrians and moving vehicles.
On 17 March 2017, an employee was carrying a pallet across the workshop when he was struck by the forklift. He sustained serious fractures to his leg and ankle and was off work for several months.
Investigating, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found there was inadequate segregation of forklifts and workers who were moving around on foot. It said the company had carried out a risk assessment but overlooked the importance of marked vehicle and pedestrian areas.
Mid Cheshire Pallets pleaded guilty to breaching ss 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. It has been fined £6,500 and ordered to pay costs of £7,362.
HSE inspector Jane Carroll said: “If a suitable system of work had been in place, the injuries sustained by this employee could have been prevented.”
Training failures left delivery driver with traumatic brain injury on first day of work
An agency worker who fell off a raised tail lift and suffered a brain injury on his first day in a new job had not been trained to use the equipment safely, a court was told.
The 27-year-old man was working as a multi-drop delivery driver for pallet distribution firm H&M Distribution when the accident happened on 18 May 2017.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching s 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act and has been fined £60,000.
Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court was told that the worker was given a “brief” induction at the company’s Gloucester depot before starting work the same day.
However, an address on his route was incorrect and the order of 12 beer was in fact 12 kegs which was undeliverable. The worker was moving the kegs with a pallet truck to access the next load when he fell from the raised tail lift on to the road.
Several kegs of beer fell and struck him, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and facial fractures that required metal plates to be inserted into his skull.
Investigating, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the worker had no previous experience with the type of pallet truck or tail lift involved in the accident. He had not been trained to use the machinery safely, nor was he made aware of safe working practices for operating a pallet truck on a tail lift.
It said H&M Distribution failed in its duty to carry out checks on the injured person’s competence and previous experience and, as a result, did not provide adequate training.
The company was ordered to pay prosecution costs of £7,203 also.
After the hearing HSE inspector Berenice Ray said: “Employers who use agency workers or contractors have a responsibility to firstly establish the workers’ competence, [considering] their level of experience and familiarity with the work and work equipment, and then provide the appropriate level of training to ensure the work is done safely.
“If appropriate training had been provided, the life-changing injuries sustained by the agency worker could have been prevented.”
In August 2014 a H&M Distribution delivery driver was paralysed from the chest down when he was crushed between two vehicles at a yard in Sandy, Bedfordshire, resulting in a £150,000 fine.
Port trio docked more than £1.4M for security guard’s fatal HGV crush
A port operator, a security firm and a shipping company must pay fines totally more than £1.4m after an employee was struck and dragged underneath a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) at the Port of Immingham.
Lyndon Perks sustained multiple injuries and died at the scene following the incident, which took place at the port’s east gate off Mineral Quay Road at Immingham Docks, North East Lincolnshire, on 9 September 2015.
The ICTS (UK) employed security guard had approached the articulated vehicle as it entered the port, which is operated by Associated British Ports (ABP), on its way to the DFDS Seaways warehouse.
The 50-year-old was not visible to the driver, either on his approach to the HGV or as he walked in front of it and was dragged under the lorry.
Judge Paul Watson told Hull Crown Court that Perks had stepped forward to flag down the HGV driver for security checks and, because the vehicle stopped, assumed the driver had seen him.
“He walked across the front of the lorry, presumably to go to the driver’s side to speak to him, when the lorry pulled forward and made its turn into the DFDS Seaways’ area of the terminal.”
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that ABP, which has responsibility for the port’s infrastructure, had failed to update its workplace transport risk assessment after the opening of the east gate in December 2014.
ABP also required the security guard at the east gate to stop traffic and check pedestrians and vehicles entering the terminal but failed to provide the means to do so safely. There was no signage indicating that drivers should stop and report to security, and no safe facilities.
The HSE found that the traffic control systems were inadequate. The physical layout of the area around the east gate was confusing and did not have the appearance of a security entrance. The security building was unmarked and was not easily identified, and there was also no physical protection, such as a security barrier, for the security staff.
Longstanding failures at refinery that led to fatal explosion costs firms more than £6m
Two companies must pay more than £6m after “longstanding failures” to control the risks to safety from flammable atmospheres at the Pembroke refinery in south Wales eight years ago led to a fatal explosion.
Swansea Crown Court was told how the fireball explosion ripped through the roof of a storage tank that was being emptied in the amine recovery unit (ARU) by five workers.
The five-tonne tank roof was thrown 55 m into a butane storage sphere. It narrowly missed a pipe track used to transport several flammable materials.
Dennis Riley, Robert Broome, Andrew Jenkins and Julie Schmitz died in the blast on 2 June 2011. The fifth worker, Andrew Phillips, was very seriously injured during what should have been a routine emptying operation in preparation for further cleaning and maintenance, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said.
Its investigation found that the explosion was “most likely” triggered by an ignition source inside the tank. There were “longstanding failures in the refinery’s safety management systems” that meant flammable atmospheres in the ARU were not “understood or controlled”, it said.
Fuel company Valero Energy UK and tank cleaning specialist B&A Contracts, a long-term contractor at the refinery that was carrying out the work at the time, both pleaded guilty to breaching ss 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court last October.
On the 6th June they were fined £5m and £140,000 respectively. Valero was also ordered to pay £1m costs, while B&A, which employed Broome, Jenkins and Riley, must pay costs of £40,000.
The refinery’s former owner Chevron will pay the £5m fine and costs as part of an arrangement it reached with Valero, which acquired the refinery two months after the disaster.
The HSE said the blast was “entirely preventable”. It happened about ten minutes into a procedure to remove liquid and sludge from the bottom of the tank through a hose into a vacuum tanker.
The court was told that an electrostatic spark from the hose was “overwhelmingly likely” to have caused the explosion, though it was not possible to say for certain. A reading of the tank’s flammable gas levels, taken just days before the incident, showed it had a lower explosive limit of 67%. A safe limit would be under 10%.
Judge Mr Justice Lewis said these results should have “stopped everyone in their tracks”, but a lack of staff communication meant they were “not properly communicated” or “not understood” and created an “accident waiting to happen”, according to BBC News.
Valero is classed as a “very large” organisation under the sentencing guidelines for safety and health offences, while B&A is a “micro” company.
HSE inspector Andrew Knowles said: “This incident, which had devastating consequences for all those involved, was entirely preventable. Many opportunities to take action to control risk were missed that would have prevented the incident from occurring.
Driver Safety – Driven to Distraction
Inattentive and distracted drivers carry risks for their employers as well as the public.
In 2016 motor vehicles covered 521 billion km in Great Britain, resulting in 1,792 road fatalities, 24,101 serious injuries and 155,491 minor injuries. All those incidents, as well as the millions in the years before and the toll since, have consequences for those immediately involved, but many also have an impact on employers.
Beyond the physical manifestations of accidents in smashed vehicles and lost loads, there is the incapacitation of key employees. When those employees are also found to be at fault, the legal system can puncture operational activities.
Employers must take care that their requirements on workers who drive, from sales reps to heavy goods vehicle drivers, do not contribute to circumstances in which they are not giving that task their full attention.
Legally…
The Road Traffic Act 1988 offers the authorities a suite of offences to punish bad driving. The most serious is causing death by dangerous driving – when a driver’s performance falls far below that of a competent and careful driver and their actions have resulted in the death of another road user. A crown court can jail the offender for up to 14 years and disqualify them for a minimum of 24 months. If a fatality has occurred but the standard of driving has fallen below, but not so far below, that of a competent, careful driver, the defendant will face a charge of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. This carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and disqualification for at least 12 months.
The defining point for the seriousness of any driving offence is the difference between driving that falls far below that of a competent and careful driver (the test for dangerous driving) and that which falls below that of a competent and careful driver (the test for careless driving). These tests apply not only to homicide offences but constitute offences in their own right with very different potential outcomes.
An offence of dangerous driving could be punishable by up to two years in prison and disqualification for a minimum of 12 months. Careless driving is not imprisonable and rarely attracts a ban if no one is hurt or killed; the most common sanctions are fines and penalty points that are endorsed on the offender’s licence.
In 2012 legislators attempted to fill the gap between minor injuries and death with the introduction of the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a minimum 24-month disqualification from driving.
Case studies…
Samantha Ayres was on a long telephone call with a friend when she veered on to the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with 26-year-old motorcyclist David Kirk, who died. Ayres was using a hands-free kit, which is legal, but drivers must be in control of their vehicles. She was found to have been distracted by the call, which impaired her ability to drive safely. Ayres pleaded not guilty but was convicted in December 2017 of causing death by dangerous driving. She was jailed for three years and banned from driving for four.
In another case; Inattention can also be caused by fatigue. Daryl Perera, 28, who was training to be a GP, had finished his second 12-hour shift in two days. He met friends for dinner and there was no suggestion he himself had been drinking.
As he was returning home just before midnight, he drove on to a crossroads in Birmingham city centre, ignoring a give-way sign and markings. He collided with another car, which was speeding but had the right of way; the driver sustained serious injuries.
Perera pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving and was jailed for two years with a five-year driving ban to start when he was released. This was later reduced to two years.
The case is a reminder that, irrespective of their work, the driver must ensure they are capable to drive at all times. As well as mobile phone use and fatigue, court judgments have highlighted other causes of distraction or inattention. These include sat navs, map work, talking to passengers, lighting cigarettes, eating, drinking, adjusting controls of electronic equipment, lack of situational awareness such as failure to use all visual aids, poor positioning, not managing junctions, coasting through give-way signs, failing to look ahead and poor lane management.
For business drivers, if we add reporting-in requirements and the necessity to check routes in unfamiliar areas, the risk of distraction-related impairment increases.
Tougher sentences in future…
The government has recognised public concern about sentencing for drivers who kill or seriously injure others on the road. It has consulted on creating a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, increasing the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving and death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years’ imprisonment to life.
In October 2017 the government said more than 9,000 submissions had been made with majorities of 70-90% supporting the proposals. The government has said it will bring forward the changes when parliamentary time allows.
Applying these proposals to the case studies, Samantha Ayres could have faced a life sentence of imprisonment. If disqualification periods were increased, those individuals would probably be facing significantly longer driving bans.
The cases outlined and the likelihood of tougher sentences in future reinforce how important it is for organisations to vet prospective drivers, provide training and instruction and minimise distraction to ensure that their employees can operate safely on the road.
Behavioural Safety – What is it?
The main cause of Health, Safety and Environmental incidents is related to People/behaviour…
Some safety practitioners claim 82% of Accidents are behaviour related whilst 18% are design & equipment failures – unsafe conditions.
BEHAVIOURAL SAFETY
Stopping Tomorrow’s Accident Today
Why do we need Behavioural Safety?
Every time there’s an accident, we try very hard to make changes and improvements that mean it won’t happen again. This is important, of course, and will continue, but really, it’s too late. It took someone to get hurt before we got it right. Every time there’s an accident, we react to it. What we really need to do is be proactive, seek out tomorrow’s accident and take action now, before it happens. Many good businesses these days have good behavioural safety initiatives which, can help stop tomorrow’s accident today!
The traditional approach to safety is to first deal with the basics like the guarding of machinery and electrical isolation. The natural next step is to look at safe systems of work and develop procedures and instructions. This is right and proper, but in itself it doesn’t stop all accidents happening. Many companies who’ve done this find their safety performance better, but on a plateau.
Even where companies have put all this in place, there is evidence that accidents and injuries are still happening at work. Companies that have done all of this have realised that at some point the safety performance stops improving – it levels out. They have realised you cannot achieve zero injuries without tackling behaviour as well.
To get off the plateau we must also implement behavioural safety. This is because most accidents these days aren’t complicated, and most accidents could be prevented with a few seconds thought. Across industry, experience tells us that people suffer the same type of injuries – slips, trips and falls, cuts to hands, bruises, strains and sprains, hurt backs and banged heads – all behavioural type injuries. Implementing a behavioural safety observation programme is key to improving reducing the risks.
Even if you had the best systems and procedures in the world, and the most immaculate and tidy workplace, injuries will still occur if people break the rules, defeat guards, take short cuts, don’t wear their PPE and so on, all of which are unsafe behaviours.
At least 95% of incidents and near miss events at work have an element of unsafe behaviour – the things we should do but don’t do when we should. On the positive side because it’s PEOPLE that have accidents, and PEOPLE that cause some accidents, it’s also PEOPLE that can prevent them, hence the role of BEHAVIOURAL SAFETY as well as the other things described above.
Why do people behave unsafely?
A few examples are…………
- Sometimes we don’t have the tools and equipment to do the job safely. (Sometimes we do have the tools and equipment, but don’t use them).
- Sometimes the rules and procedures haven’t been put in place (Sometimes they have, but we don’t follow them).
- Sometimes we take shortcuts because it’s easier, simpler, saves time.
- Sometimes we are just not thinking or tired, stressed, distracted, unwell or preoccupied (We’re only human after all!!!).
- Sometimes we see people behaving unsafely, but we don’t say anything or do anything.
So how does behavioural safety work?
What it’s really all about is getting key stakeholders such as Senior Managers, Team leaders, Safety Representatives all out on a regular basis talking about safety with the people who know where and how the accidents have, and more importantly can happen. There’s no doubt that the people who have the knowledge about the hazards and risks on the job are the operators who do the jobs! The aim, therefore, must be to engage, talk about safety, swap knowledge, swap ideas, swap information and improve safety.
To do this safety discussions focus on behaviour. The idea being to observe, watch people work and then give them feedback. When they see safe behaviour – when people get it right – they say so. When they see unsafe behaviour they discuss why the person was doing what they were doing, and how we could change it, so they are not hurt in the future. Safety discussions give people the chance to share their concerns and get involved in preventing TOMMOROW’S ACCIDENT.
So, what do we do?
Firstly, we need to be clear on the safe behavior’s we expect of people so it’s clear what’s acceptable and what’s not. And we need to enforce it.
Secondly, we need to have a workplace where we never ever ignore an unsafe act. Whenever we see somebody doing something where they are at risk, we say something or do something. TO IGNORE IS TO CONDONE!
Is it that simple?
No, clearly if it were that simple, we would have done it already! Right? and would have zero injuries. Clearly, it’s more complicated than that, and goes much deeper aiming to address the Health & Safety Culture in the workplace. The Culture (“the way we do things round here”) is also critical in achieving our goal of zero injuries. Everyone must be given the opportunity to behave safely, look after themselves, and others, i.e. the need to create a culture where SAFETY is valued higher than anything, ‘including production’.
Finally, “We’re absolutely convinced to improve health & safety at work, you need to create a safety climate and culture where we truly believe that NOTHING we do at work is worth being hurt for. NOTHING we do here is so important we cannot take the time to do it safely. Even better, I am sure that good safety is good business. It doesn’t have to be one or the other; we don’t have to have good safety or good production output. The priority should always be safe production”.
In our next addition we look at “How can we Influence a Safety Climate and Culture”?
A fascinating insight based around true events following a workplace fatality.
A Safety Culture that took 5 years to build.
How well do you Know your road signs? Take the 3-minute quiz to find out
No matter where you look when driving these days, there is a sign to tell you to do something, give you a direction or just simply confuse you!!!
But are you 100% sure of what every road sign is telling you to do?
Take this short quiz to see just how well you know your road signs. Remember the average time to complete the 10 questions is only 3 minutes with an avg score at the end of 84% to gain any bragging rights. NO CHEATING PLEASE. Answers can be found at the end of this newsletter.
What does this sign mean?
- No overtaking
- Dual carriageway
- Single carriageway
What does this sign mean?
- Cars and motorbikes only
- No motor vehicles
- No through road
What does this sign mean?
- Pelican crossing ahead
- Pedestrian crossing ahead
- Pedestrian walkway ahead
What does this sign mean?
- Two lanes merge to one dual carriageway
- Pedestrians crossing both sides
- Vehicles may pass either side
What does this sign mean?
- Soft verges
- Uneven road
- Incomplete road ahead
What does this sign mean?
- Bikes and boats only
- No vehicles except bicycles being pushed
- Speed limit doesn’t apply to any vehicles
What does this sign mean?
- Train station ahead
- Level crossing with barriers ahead
- Level crossing without barriers ahead
What does this sign mean?
This road sign tells drivers to drive the national speed limit, but what is the national speed limit for a car on a single carriageway?
- 50 mph
- 60 mph
- 70 mph
What does this sign mean?
- No vehicles carrying explosives
- Vehicles carrying explosives allowed
- Firework display ahead
What does this sign mean?
- Bend to right ahead
- Traffic merging from left ahead
- Junction on bend ahead
Word Search Quiz
Can you find 20 words, which are associated to ‘Behavioural safety’
Answers to the road signs 3-minute quiz
Q.1 — 1 No overtaking
Q.2 — 2 No motor vehicles
Q.3 — 2 Pedestrian crossing ahead
Q.4 — 3 Vehicles may pass either side
Q.5 — 1 Soft verges
Q.6 — 2 No vehicles except bicycles being pushed
Q.7 — 3 Level crossing without barriers ahead
Q.8 — 2 60 mph
Q.9 — 1 No vehicles carrying explosives
Q.10 — 3 Junction on bend ahead
Congratulations to those that got more than 8 out of 10

