I watched a tv report last night that a riding school are using 'magic water' on the horses tack because improves rider safety. Now I thought magic water was a marking substance which allowed police to identify stolen goods not some sort of glue which stopped riders falling off horses. Still it was obvious from the interviewees sentence construction they had been primed to plug safety at all possible opportunities. Then the closing shots of a reporter who hadn't been on a horse for 20 years declaring that he felt much safer because there was a blob of water marking his saddle just about took the biscuit.

Then I read this

Royal Mail ends deliveries to remote hamlet on health and safety grounds | UK news | The Guardian

Safety my arse. Try getting to my brother in laws place two miles up an unmade track off a side road halfway up the Horseshoe Pass. Water running off the Bryn across it often washing it away, sheep wandering about and a couple of hundred foot drop the other side of a wire fence Everybody delivers there including the Mail.

Seems that the old 'It's a fault in the computer sir' has been replaced by 'Safety Reasons' as the excuse for everything, especially where they just want to save money

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

It's so ridiculous you've almost got to love it.

How about people start ringing in to work saying that it is too unsafe to leave the house.

You know when the strikes where happening I emailed the Royal Mail boss and the head of the union. I'm not a union man, but credit it where it is due, at least the union boss replied. I'm still waiting for the email back from RM!

__________________
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them!

Join General Chat for free!

Before I try to answer your question of whether Safety is being overused - as a reason for not doing things I assume from the links you have given - let me point out one major problem with the Health & Safety at Work Act since its implementation in 1974. As someone who was very closely concerned with the implementation of this legislation in the Comany I worked for I got a very clear insight into the potential problems with it and how easily it could be used for bogging everything down with red tape. There are many places in the Regulations where the implementation is nebulous. You get stupid statements such as "taking all reasonable precautions against ... A,B or C". What is reasonable? This type of statement can only be clarified in law by a Court. If you get a situation where someone has scalded themselves with some water which has spilled from a container on a hob as they tried to lift it off the "reasonable" precautions would be examined closely. For example, did the person scalded use heat resistant gloves to lift the container? Did he/she, or Supervision, evaluate whether the container was too heavy for one person to lift it easily? What clothing was worn by the person involved and was it effective in stopping hot water getting on the skin? Did the person need a face visor to stop water spalshing on their face? This list could go on but I think you'll see what I mean. Can you imagine a Chef wearing a face visor while he is cooking to stop being burnt by splashes of water or fat? I know that I can't.

As a result of situations where people have been doing jobs for years, like delivering mail, where they have had to pass places where, if they jumped over the fence, they would disappear into a canyon, suddenly someone sees a potential problem and wants to do something to stop the danger. The fact that common sense indicates that only a stark raving lunatic would jump over the said fence doesn't come into it. It might happen in the most extreme situation and the question of whether allowing someone to potentially put themselves in this situation raises what "reasonable" precautions need to be taken to meet the legislation. Hence you get the over reaction of belt, braces, screws, nails and anything else which could be taken into account if the almost impossible did happen and the company ended up in Court.

After all this Sooty the answer to your question is a resounding YES. Health & Safety legislation is being overused primarily because it wasn't made clear what was "reasonable" in the first place. Each case has to go to Court to qualify if "reasonable" precautions were taken in each and every case.

Pheeew

It makes you wonder how places like Alton Towers still operate. There must be some clause about public expectations...surely when you ride a horse you "expect" that sometimes you fall off (I know I did!!)
IMO It isn''t so much the legislation as the fear of litigation which makes businesses so over-careful.

Agreed SP - something else to blame the Yanks for! Let's sue everybody for everything we can. My pet gripe on that one is people suing councils for falling over paving slabs and then moaning that the council tax is going.

Anyway Adam

__________________
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them!

Join General Chat for free!

I think what most people either don't know, or have never been aware of, is that the whole Health & Safety legislation came about as a result of European Directives. In 1974 when the H&S Act came into force the emphasis, by manufacturing companies, was placed on the Safety of the workforce rather than their Health. This was primarily because the Factories Act/s which the H&S replaced tended towards safety. New guards on machines and working practices were concerned with safety. When it was realised that the health of the workforce needed to be reinforced more Directives came out of Brussels which resulted in the COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) Regulations of 1984 being introduced. These have been modified over the years by subsequent Directives. This has resulted in anything which can be classed as Chemical having to be Risk Assesed before it is used in the workplace. The situation has snowballed so now face masks, respirators, gloves and face visors are a regular feature on the shop floor along with ear defenders and ear plugs. The whole system is a time consuming and tedious business which tries to take personal liability away from the individual and place the liability at the Company door.

More things for which we can thank the European Commission.

Hmm not sure. I work a lot in Europe and nowhere implements the H&S act in the way we do in the UK. I do wonder if some 'gilding' has gone on.

That said 9 times out of ten H&S is used by insurance companies to exempt something from a policy they suddenly don't want to cover anymore rather like the banning of the 3 legged race from a school sports day. I wasn't H&S although that was the first reason given it was the insurance companies refusing to cover it.

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!