Free Speech V Police,CPS and Homophobic abuse toward us....interesting article

[Gullflyinghigh]

Really? The fact my hi-viz HAS to be fastened whilst sitting inside a protective layer of steel (with a seatbelt on, at 10mph etc) isn't ludicrous? I am stunned!

Not necessarily for your benefit though surely? Like I said before, I get that it's annoying (and I'd say the same if were you I suspect) but from the outside it's not all that crazy.

It's possible that I just see it differently, H&S policies/rules almost always seem to be split into two groups;

1) Genuine safety advice
2) Protection from legal recourse

I'm willing to bet that the majority of the rules that are considered crazy have been put in place because it's been identified as an area where someone would be able/likely to sue if an accident did occur (or that someone already has). From that, surely there's a case to be made that the perceived 'nanny state' is as much a product of people's willingness to 'go legal' for daft reasons as it is an over-zealous HSE.

 

[ozseagull]

Really? The fact my hi-viz HAS to be fastened whilst sitting inside a protective layer of steel (with a seatbelt on, at 10mph etc) isn't ludicrous? I am stunned!

Nope not ludicrous at all. In fact less than a year ago I saw an airside worker at Gatwick permanently lose the use of both legs when one of those protective layers of steel got hit by a bigger protective layer of Steel. It got knocked over and no seat belt meant legs crushed.

So wear your bloody seat belt and hi vis and shut up moaning.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Really? The fact my hi-viz HAS to be fastened whilst sitting inside a protective layer of steel (with a seatbelt on, at 10mph etc) isn't ludicrous? I am stunned!

Shirley being visible at all times in a potentially very dangerous environment is a good thing? That said, I've no doubt that if somthing untoward happened to you whilst working - which wearing a hi-vis &/or seatbelt would have prevented serious injury - would just result in you shrugging your shoulders and saying "it was just one of those things..."

 

[father_and_son]

Really? The fact my hi-viz HAS to be fastened whilst sitting inside a protective layer of steel (with a seatbelt on, at 10mph etc) isn't ludicrous? I am stunned!

I think the reason your hi-viz must be worn and fastened is cos some muppet got out of his protective layer of steel, leaving said jacket on the passenger seat and caused damage in the form of bent metal and/or bent people because he wasn't highly visible (the passenger seat was, but he wasn't).

Hence to avoid further loss of bodies and/or steel, your manager has determined that because you (collectively, not you personally) can't be trusted to put the jacket on BEFORE you get out of the car, you are required to wear it [properly] at all times, including while driving.

Seems perfectly sensible and plausible given some of the muppets out there.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The minority of idiots who think their right to 'free speech' is being curtailed should understand that with free speech in public goes personal responsibility. It appears to me that those individuals who have such an issue with moderating their use of offensive &/or inappropriate language on matchday have turned into the very Bleaters that they apparently despise so much. Perhaps they need to get a foul-mouthed, offensive campaign going to win over the rest of society?

Very good point, well made.

 

[essexeagle]

Nope not ludicrous at all. In fact less than a year ago I saw an airside worker at Gatwick permanently lose the use of both legs when one of those protective layers of steel got hit by a bigger protective layer of Steel. It got knocked over and no seat belt meant legs crushed.

So wear your bloody seat belt and hi vis and shut up moaning.

Well if true that's terrible but how did not wearing a seatbelt (at the presumably 10mph) affect his legs? The seatbelt will only protect the torso, not the legs? But the point of this particular H & S madness was the fact my hi-viz had to be done up by the velcro, inside the bloody van! I guess that may have saved the guy's legs too? !!

 

[father_and_son]

Well if true that's terrible but how did not wearing a seatbelt (at the presumably 10mph) affect his legs? The seatbelt will only protect the torso, not the legs?

The purpose of a seatbelt is to keep you inside the safe zone of the vehicle. Portions of the bodywork are designed to deform in particular ways under impact and there is an area within the centre of the vehicle designed to stay unmolested (at a low impact - flattened by a truck is flattened by a truck). The seatbelt restrains you from leaving this safe zone while the crumpling reduces the energy of the impact.

Not wearing a seatbelt means any part of you can be in any part of the vehicle (or indeed thrown through the glass) and then get squished by the crumpling metal.

 

[essexeagle]

The purpose of a seatbelt is to keep you inside the safe zone of the vehicle. Portions of the bodywork are designed to deform in particular ways under impact and there is an area within the centre of the vehicle designed to stay unmolested (at a low impact - flattened by a truck is flattened by a truck). The seatbelt restrains you from leaving this safe zone while the crumpling reduces the energy of the impact.

Not wearing a seatbelt means any part of you can be in any part of the vehicle (or indeed thrown through the glass) and then get squished by the crumpling metal.

Look, I'm not being funny but all that will happen at 10mph? Especially with a hi-viz, fastened by velcro?
Anyway, that's me done with this thread. I didn't mean for it to be sidetracked into a h & s debate. Up the Palace!