Ouch. Now that's a Fine!

[Paul in NZ]

Bloody hell - OK - repeat warnings (dumb buggers) but thank goodness Work Safe don't patrol the streets...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/64225722/40000-fine-for-no-quad-bike-helmets

Its interesting though because a lot of us use vehicles as a workplace...

[hayd3n]

i guess its treated the same way as running machinery with its safety guards removed

[skippa1]

Tey will be coming into your property soon telling you what you can and cant do...

whole thing has gone mad....osh, now worksafe. What happened to a bit of personal responsibility

[unstuck]

Bit dumb of them really.
But can understand to a degree, it can be a hassle when working, to keep track of your helmet.

[mashman]

OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG panic, ahhh, ahhh, help someone's not wearing a helmet, they could die.

Think about the risk factor people. Don't get out of bed in the morning.

[Murray]

.. but still 35 farmers come off their quad bikes every day," Zohrab said.


Wonder where they got that statistic from???

[awayatc]

There is something very very wrong in this country.....

and worst thing is that we all just shrug our shoulders.....

But the more we accept, the more they will throw at us...

It wont stop, or go away...

It will get worse..

[oldrider]

Why didn't they just increase their ACC and lower ours? :mad:

[Tazz]

Tey will be coming into your property soon telling you what you can and cant do...

whole thing has gone mad....osh, now worksafe. What happened to a bit of personal responsibility

Pffft, that kinda backwards thinking doesn't create any jobs now does it :laugh:

What a fucking joke.

[Paul in NZ]

.. but still 35 farmers come off their quad bikes every day," Zohrab said.


Wonder where they got that statistic from???

ACC I suspect....

Bound to be accurate.... cough....

[imdying]

They were told many times. The rules were explained to them. None of this was ambiguous. They were given so many opportunities to comply. Even now, they would still expect, and be given, free medical treatment should they injure themselves. Making that small effort to mitigate that risk was the only thing being asked of them. They weren't being asked to fit roll bars and wear full armor setups, or anything even remotely complicated or expensive :facepalm:

[bogan]

.. but still 35 farmers come off their quad bikes every day," Zohrab said.


Wonder where they got that statistic from???

Well they probably looked at the number of fatalities and injuries helmets could prevent and decided it was fuck all, so had to go with something a little more scary...

[buggerit]

Well they probably looked at the number of fatalities and injuries helmets could prevent and decided it was fuck all, so had to go with something a little more scary...

I wonder if the Worksafe employee was dealt too, if this would be considered a motorcycle related injury?:confused:

[Flip]

Good on the courts.

Farming is one of the most dangerous occupations and these share milkers deserve every thing they get.

OK $40k is a bit steep but they have got the message.

[Scuba_Steve]

Good on the courts.

Farming is one of the most dangerous occupations and these share milkers deserve every thing they get.

OK $40k is a bit steep but they have got the message.

Have they? reckon couple months they'll be back to usual...

[awa355]

They were told many times. The rules were explained to them. None of this was ambiguous. They were given so many opportunities to comply. Even now, they would still expect, and be given, free medical treatment should they injure themselves. Making that small effort to mitigate that risk was the only thing being asked of them. They weren't being asked to fit roll bars and wear full armor setups, or anything even remotely complicated or expensive :facepalm:

I agree, but 40grand is just ridiculous. How many times would you have to be caught riding on the public roads without a helmet to rack up $40,000 in fines?.

[Flip]

Have they? reckon couple months they'll be back to usual...

Some company gets fined under the HSE act and everybody thinks it is the same as a personal traffic ticket for breaking the traffic regulations. If I got say 3 warnings and the last being a legal order from a govt dept to stop doing illlegal stupid shit and I did not listen. Well they are either being bellerant cunts or are just to fucking stupid to think the laws don't apply to them.

I would just call it stupid tax. If they have an accident on a quad bike guess what stats for acc it comes under!

[Voltaire]

First they came for the Farmers, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Farmer....

[nodrog]

Cows with guns.

[Mushu]

They were told many times. The rules were explained to them. None of this was ambiguous. They were given so many opportunities to comply. Even now, they would still expect, and be given, free medical treatment should they injure themselves. Making that small effort to mitigate that risk was the only thing being asked of them. They weren't being asked to fit roll bars and wear full armor setups, or anything even remotely complicated or expensive :facepalm:
If you're going to force them to wear helmets, why not chest armour, or a neck brace? Surely that will be coming soon, just helmets now, gotta start somewhere.

Some things in life are inherently dangerous and that's the way it's supposed to be, how are we to continue to evolve if the dumb ones have been legislated out of the ability to remove themselves from the gene pool.

Idiocracy - shit movie, but the first 5 minutes us a pretty accurate look at the future of the human race, imo.

[buggerit]

I agree, but 40grand is just ridiculous. How many times would you have to be caught riding on the public roads without a helmet to rack up $40,000 in fines?.

Was someone injured?, what is the fine for drunk driving causing death?

[imdying]

I agree, but 40grand is just ridiculous. How many times would you have to be caught riding on the public roads without a helmet to rack up $40,000 in fines?.It's a drop in the bucket compared to paying for one single farmer to spend a month in ICU due to a head injury (an assumption yes, it could be as little as a days cost for all I know). This was a workplace fine, and if the article is to be believed, one they could have so easily avoided if they'd bothered to heed any of the multiple warnings they'd had.


If you're going to force them to wear helmets, why not chest armour, or a neck brace? Surely that will be coming soon, just helmets now, gotta start somewhere.Crikey.

I am not forcing them to wear anything.

Nobody is forcing them to wear helmets. They are only required, by law, to wear them when operating quad bikes. Given that farming was going on for a while before quad bikes arrived, even their job isn't forcing them to use quad bikes.

You cannot know what will be coming soon. It appears you are just making stuff up because your argument doesn't hold water.

What is it where you live, logical fallacy day?

[bogan]

Cows with guns.

That, I would don a helmet for.

[R650R]

Fully deserved when they had ample warnings, how hard is it to wear a helmet, especially when you know an enforcement agency is watching.
Big fine warranted as its a business operation so a bigger stick needed. These types of people are the same who probably hold out on their employees having proper gloves and gear too so good job.

Today I was watching some tradies who could have been up for a big fine and suppose they would winge if caught too.

For starters they were operating on a busy road, parked on footpath where lots of mums with prams travel past and no cones or signs etc.
Using wrong tool for job - small hiab crane instead of stumpgrinder to remove tree stump. When it wouldn't budge they just ramped it up till the roots broke and shock loaded the cables, spider nesting them on the drum so they had to boom in and retension the cables and start again.
After that screw up you could see them reading the load rating plate, a job you should do before the start.
They still couldn't properly do what they wanted so an axe come out...
Now if a chunk of metal or cable had flung out and injured a passing pedestrian or motorcyclist...
OSH can be a pain but theres a hole genetic strain out there that keeps them employed....

[skippa1]

Pffft, that kinda backwards thinking doesn't create any jobs now does it :laugh:

What a fucking joke.
Who said anything about creating jobs? Im pickin you know exactly what a joke is.....:eek:

[Motu]

This might give the farmers around our way a bit of a fright - they ride their quads into work to get fuel, get something repaired, or get the bike fixed, none of them wear a helmet. One guy rides his CT110 down everyday, never seen him wear a helmet. I rode a TRX420 up the road last week...no helmet.

[JATZ]

This might give the farmers around our way a bit of a fright - they ride their quads into work to get fuel, get something repaired, or get the bike fixed, none of them wear a helmet. One guy rides his CT110 down everyday, never seen him wear a helmet. I rode a TRX420 up the road last week...no helmet.

Bullshit...... You'd be dead if you did that, apparently :D

[Motu]

I think riding without a helmet should be compulsory - bring a bit of fragility into the job. Wear armour and the risk of getting hurt is minimised.

[amberzfire]

snapped bro

[Swoop]

The big question is "were they wearing Hi-Faggotry vests'?"

You can't be injured if you wear one of those...

[unstuck]

Imagine the field day the OSH gestapo would have with these lads.:laugh::laugh:

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1175974935783028" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1175974935783028">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LADbible">The LAD Bible</a>.</div></div>

[oneblackflag]

Fine the numb nutts who let kids ride them or carry multiple people and crash the things. Often not farmers FFS.

Riding <30 kph on flat Dairy farm - no need for helmet IMO. Rolling the bike and being crushed is the main risk, and no helmet is saving you then (this is where rider training should come in).

There is also the practicality of putting it on and off MULTIPLE times even within half an hour as you are on and off the bike all day. Maybe helmets should be worn at all times (high viz to boot) :rolleyes: there is a fuck load more dangerous things on farm... This is easy to police though, much like small speed infringements on the road.

God forbid people doing their own risk assessments and taking personal responsibility for their safty.

As for the ACC cost when someone does get a head injury.... Farmers pay out huge ACC levies anyway then have to battle tooth and nail to get any sort of income cover, to a point where many don't bother.

/Rant

[oneblackflag]

Good on the courts.

Farming is one of the most dangerous occupations and these share milkers deserve every thing they get.

OK $40k is a bit steep but they have got the message.

"A bit steep"? It's fucking outrageous...

They own their business and choose not to have a compulsory helmet policy. They take all the risk themselves. It would be different if they refused to supply helmets to staff... Maybe 40k could be justified. Staff should though also be able to deside if they wear helmets or not, personal responsibility; but must have them available to them IMO.

Safty Nazis fuck off.

[Kickaha]

God forbid people doing their own risk assessments and taking personal responsibility for their safty.
Problem is they don't, they operate on the "it won't happen to me" idea

[oneblackflag]

Problem is they don't, they operate on the "it won't happen to me" idea

Natural selection at it's finest. And God we need more of it!

[unstuck]

personal responsibility

Something that seems to be disappearing from the human race at an alarming rate. :weird:

[oneblackflag]

Something that seems to be disappearing from the human race at an alarming rate. :weird:

Likely due to the dickheads that would have us wear mandatory bubble wrap suits and do the thinking for us.:2guns:

[unstuck]

Likely due to the dickheads that would have us wear mandatory bubble wrap suits and do the thinking for us.:2guns:

Sometimes when you see the actions of some of the fuckers around the place, I can understand the reasoning. But I feel it is all getting a bit out of hand.:blink:

[tri boy]

Cows with guns.

I raise you
Chickens in choppers.

[oneblackflag]

Sometimes when you see the actions of some of the fuckers around the place, I can understand the reasoning.

Is forced sterilisation sill a bit un PC?

[awayatc]

First they came for the Farmers, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Farmer....

Its to late .......
some on here happily joining the lynchmob allready....

good on helmetless cockies for standing up against stupid laws and rules..
Just because its a law doesnt make it right...

mind you sheoples are supposed to just do as they are told...
people can think for themselves

[unstuck]

Is forced sterilisation sill a bit un PC?

Unfortunately, yes. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better though.:wacko:

[Kickaha]

Likely due to the dickheads that would have us wear mandatory bubble wrap suits and do the thinking for us.:2guns:
It's due to dickheads not thinking that those people came about

[oneblackflag]

It's due to dickheads not thinking that those people came about

Then enforce blanket rules effecting everyone, often targeting the wong people (those who think or are least prone to the risks trying to be mitigated). Case in point the couple pinged 40k.

[Kickaha]

Then enforce blanket rules effecting everyone, often targeting the wong people (those who think or are least prone to the risks trying to be mitigated). Case in point the couple pinged 40k.
If you're too fucking stupid to heed multiple warnings you deserve everything you get, case in point the couple pinged 40k

[oneblackflag]

If you're too fucking stupid to heed multiple warnings you deserve everything you get, case in point the couple pinged 40k

I would argue standing up to or belligerence towards unjust rules has nothing to do with stupidity... Stupid is being a good sheeple that subverts self responsibilities to gubberment departments 'cause they know best'.

You really think someone on their own farm deserves a 40k fine for failing to wear a helmet? When it is of no/little safty benifit. You realise these are dinky open face helmets that would not protect you in a roll over anyway?

[Kickaha]

You realise these are dinky open face helmets that would not protect you in a roll over anyway?

I didn't realise that a roll over was the only kind of accident you could have on a farm

[awayatc]

If you're too fucking stupid to heed multiple warnings you deserve everything you get, case in point the couple pinged 40k

Not sure what makes anybody "think" like that.......
surely a fine should reflect the seriousness of an "offense"?
so riding a quadbike on a farm without a helmet is more serious then having caused an accident and injured / killed somebody? (Drunk driver for instance? )

what makes you think they are stupid?
I like a bit of civil disobedience....
blind rule followers are to stupid to think for themselves is my experience.

[skippa1]

Not sure what makes anybody "think" like that.......
surely a fine should reflect the seriousness of an "offense"?
so riding a quadbike on a farm without a helmet is more serious then having caused an accident and injured / killed somebody? (Drunk driver for instance? )

what makes you think they are stupid?
I like a bit of civil disobedience....
blind rule followers are to stupid to think for themselves is my experience.
Afuckenmen

[oneblackflag]

I didn't realise that a roll over was the only kind of accident you could have on a farm

Never said it was.

[Paul in NZ]

Not sure what makes anybody "think" like that.......
surely a fine should reflect the seriousness of an "offense"?
so riding a quadbike on a farm without a helmet is more serious then having caused an accident and injured / killed somebody? (Drunk driver for instance? )

what makes you think they are stupid?
I like a bit of civil disobedience....
blind rule followers are to stupid to think for themselves is my experience.

Say what you want but this is the era of the work safety Nazi...

The amount of shit we need to go through to do anything these days is unfuckin believable... The consequences of a company getting caught doing dangerous stuff is horrendous - right the way up to the directors... Like it or not a farm is a workplace and its financially reckless to ignore this shit now, no matter what you may think about it...

Just put up a ladder at work someplace and see what happens - CRAZY....

[R650R]

You realise these are dinky open face helmets that would not protect you in a roll over anyway?

No safety gear ever protects 100% from an injury.

But those dinky little helmets will keep a low speed crash as a minor crash and not a serious one. I regularly crash my mountain bike in the forest at speeds of around 20-40k on cross country trails many of which would be similar to farm tracks. It sounds slow compared to motorcycle crashes but its still plenty fast enough to do some damage. People die in city fist fights when they fall over backwards and hit head on concrete.
The same risk exists for a farmer striking his head on an exposed rock from low speed fall.
With helmet instead of needing a rescue chopper that could be saving a biker whose just been snotted by a car he could be uninjured or just off to doctor in car with missus.

Its the same as wearing hard hats when loading truck at large factorys. I've never had anything hit me on the head there but the risk exists that a sizeable piece of steel might fall off an overhead gantry,pipework winch motor etc one day...

[oneblackflag]

No safety gear ever protects 100% from an injury.

But those dinky little helmets will keep a low speed crash as a minor crash and not a serious one. I regularly crash my mountain bike in the forest at speeds of around 20-40k on cross country trails many of which would be similar to farm tracks. It sounds slow compared to motorcycle crashes but its still plenty fast enough to do some damage. People die in city fist fights when they fall over backwards and hit head on concrete.
The same risk exists for a farmer striking his head on an exposed rock from low speed fall.
With helmet instead of needing a rescue chopper that could be saving a biker whose just been snotted by a car he could be uninjured or just off to doctor in car with missus.

Its the same as wearing hard hats when loading truck at large factorys. I've never had anything hit me on the head there but the risk exists that a sizeable piece of steel might fall off an overhead gantry,pipework winch motor etc one day...

Cross county trails are hardly similar to riding down the race or through paddocks at low speed. Of course if the farm terrain was rough there is more chance of crashing (likely a rollover(which the dinky helmet is unlikely to keep you all warm and snuggly)).

How you crash a quad at low speed (thats not a rollover) that results in you falling off it and getting a bump on the head... I don't know, complete carelessness probably. There are these people around but I completely disagree that every one needs to be tarnished with the same brush and legislated against because of a few muppets.

[buggerit]

Something that seems to be disappearing from the human race at an alarming rate. :weird:

I think personal responsability and common sense were outlawed about the same time:scratch:

[unstuck]

No safety gear ever protects 100% from an injury.



Bullshit, never had a chainsaw stopped by decent chaps have you?

[Big Dog]

Bullshit, never had a chainsaw stopped by decent chaps have you?

And not volunteering to test them. Ta.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

I have only known a couple of farmers to come to grief on a quad. One flipped of the back showing off the other two high sided when their power slide through cow shit resulted in sudden and unexpected traction. All had head injuries. All crashed in the concreted area by the milking shed. All showing off for girls. None wore helmets.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[unstuck]

And not volunteering to test them. Ta.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Have tested them a couple of times now, they do work.:msn-wink:
After cutting my leg in half when younger, I wear them whenever I use my saws.

[oneblackflag]

I have only known a couple of farmers to come to grief on a quad. One flipped of the back showing off the other two high sided when their power slide through cow shit resulted in sudden and unexpected traction. All had head injuries. All crashed in the concreted area by the milking shed. All showing off for girls. None wore helmets.


So used in a reckless manner they are quite dangerous.

Average John Smith tootling along behind his cows, maybe not so much.

[unstuck]

So used in a reckless manner they are quite dangerous.

Average John Smith tootling along behind his cows, maybe not so much.

Yep, like any machine, If you leave your brain behind you are likely to get hurt.
If used with common sense and a bit of respect, they are pretty safe. I have had a couple tip over on me, but I was in places I shouldn't of had them.

[Mushu]

................

Crikey.

I am not forcing them to wear anything.

Nobody is forcing them to wear helmets. They are only required, by law, to wear them when operating quad bikes. Given that farming was going on for a while before quad bikes arrived, even their job isn't forcing them to use quad bikes.

You cannot know what will be coming soon. It appears you are just making stuff up because your argument doesn't hold water.

What is it where you live, logical fallacy day?

As usual we have people that have no idea what the job really entails commenting on saftey rules they think should be in place. The option to wear a helmet has always been avaliable to these farmers. When I was doing the job helmets weren't provided so there were areas of the farm I would not take the quad as it wasn't worth the danger to save the effort and time it takes to round up cows on foot.

It is true that farmers have been able to do their jobs without quad bikes, they used horses, which would be as dangerous as using a quad

[oneblackflag]

Remember this:


First they came for the Farmers, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Farmer....

When high viz helmets and vests (possibly bubble wrap too) are imposed onto every motorcyclist. Thats if motorcycles aren't completely banned from the road.

[Scuba_Steve]

Have tested them a couple of times now, they do work.:msn-wink:
After cutting my leg in half when younger, I wear them whenever I use my saws.

You've got a point there, chainsaws are dangerous! we need to ban them "for safety & shit" :Pokey:

[unstuck]

You've got a point there, chainsaws are dangerous! we need to ban them "for safety & shit" :Pokey:

Noooooooooooooooooooooo.:baby::baby:

[Big Dog]

So used in a reckless manner they are quite dangerous.

Average John Smith tootling along behind his cows, maybe not so much.

Trouble comes in identifying who will one day show off for some totty or try a slope best left alone.

I don't advocate compulsory helmets on farms or the road for that matter. I advocate that quad bikes not be lumped in motorcycle stats. I advocate that persons.
I advocate allowing those who wish to go without a helmet to have that choice... at the cost of losing acc rights.


I think that would be a better format. If you have a bike accident and you are covered for all injuries except those made possible or worse for not wearing a helmet.
Trouble is that is difficult to manage and inhumane. Especially where a rookie employee who may not have been made aware of the risks or bee told by an employer they will not pay for the stack hat.

I know my first few jobs i had no idea how I was going to get to work until i got paid let alone buy all re accoutrements some trades need you to have on day one.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

You've got a point there, chainsaws are dangerous! we need to ban them "for safety & shit" :Pokey:

Ownership compulsory. Surely 3 million people owning and operating chainsaws would make for a nation of chainsaw operators who could operate faster and without care for safety gear?
It works so well with cars.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[oneblackflag]

I think that would be a better format. If you have a bike accident and you are covered for all injuries except those made possible or worse for not wearing a helmet.
Trouble is that is difficult to manage and inhumane. Especially where a rookie employee who may not have been made aware of the risks or bee told by an employer they will not pay for the stack hat.



I agree with the rest of what you're saying but when you are as a business already paying more than your fair share of ACC levies why should you have to then forfit any ACC rights, that would be simply unjust.... But maybe it could be workable if you paid an extra premium to have cover for any extra injury associated with not wearing a helmet (im sure they pay enough anyway :rolleyes:)

Employees should always have access to helmets and be trained in riding a quad and acessing terrain speed etc risks. Even if it ment a 'quad safe' licence. No licence then 2 wheels only.

[swbarnett]

allowing those who wish to go without a helmet to have that choice... at the cost of losing acc rights.
The trouble is that this will very quickly be turned into:


allowing those who wish to ride a motorcycle to have that choice... at the cost of losing acc rights.

Oh, and substitute "ride a motorcycle" with "rock climbing", "Kayaking", "horse riding" or any other worthwhile past-time you care to indulge in

[mashman]

At the cost of losing acc rights. A slope best left alone.

Fixed that fo yu. How's about we put on some big boy pants and accept that accidents happen. That you fucked up once should not result in being left for dead because you don't have ACC rights and can't afford the treatment. I vote big boy pants ;)

[Kickaha]

what makes you think they are stupid?
The fact that they got more than one warning and carried on ignoring them

blind rule followers are to stupid to think for themselves is my experience.
So are people who blindy disregard them that's why others have had to do the thinking for them and why we have all this H & S bullshit

Never said it was.
So there could be accidents on the farm where they may benefit from them?

You realise these are dinky open face helmets that would not protect you in a roll over anyway?
Really? so they get no choice in what type of helmet they can wear then?

[Tazz]

All those taking a swing at people who make the (maybe not so wise choice) to not wear a helmet on a quad and applaud the fine, just remember that most accidents happen around the house.

Why are you not wearing a helmet when you're up a ladder cleaning the guttering? For that matter, shouldn't you be using scaffolding?

Do you stand on a chair when changing a light bulb? You realise a fall from that height onto a tiled or hardwood surface could cause a head injury just like riding a quad might. Where's your helmet and high viability attire?

What about cranking the chainsaw out. It's easier for Harley riders but do the rest of you whip out the thick leather chaps and safety gear? I highly doubt it and the sooner we set up a government department to hire a bunch of people who write a paper cut into their accident log to come tell people how to do things that they have no idea how to do themselves, let alone safely, the better...

Like a wee way above, it should be an (educated) choice. Maybe they don't ride above a certain speed, the farm is flat, they already have traumatic head injuries and a bit thick, who knows but it should be their choice otherwise please don't whinge when you're expected to practice what you preach as the rules tighten up on your property/work place.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11348070

[Big Dog]

Gee whiz. It is impractical go have people opt out of ACC.

I guess the current system might suck burnt is our best option. Surprise surprise.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[oneblackflag]

Really? so they get no choice in what type of helmet they can wear then?

Do you think any other option would be practical? Bubble wrap and a cardboard box perhaps.

[oneblackflag]

Gee whiz. It is impractical go have people opt out of ACC.

I guess the current system might suck burnt is our best option. Surprise surprise.


I wonder if ACC has lowered levies on farmers since they now have magic helmets that reduce risk so much it's worth a 20k fine for not wearing one....

[unstuck]

I wonder if ACC has lowered levies on farmers since they now have magic helmets that reduce risk so much it's worth a 20k fine for not wearing one....

I think it was $10 grand each offense, and they both had 2 offenses, or did I read it wrong.:confused:
Still excessive in my mind.

[oneblackflag]

I think it was $10 grand each offense, and they both had 2 offenses, or did I read it wrong.:confused:
Still excessive in my mind.

Its 15k per offensive... Don't know how it was 40k between them, but I'm no mathinst. I like to say 20 as it's slightly more dramatic. :msn-wink:

[Flip]

I think the fine for a death espcially in this case would be about half a mill, think 20k would be about right for giving the fingers to the DoL.

What you do at home is one thing, what you do at work is another. An employer, a company has to legally manage risk in the workplace and has no right to place its workers at risk.

[swbarnett]

So are people who blindy disregard them that's why others have had to do the thinking for them and why we have all this H & S bullshit
Dead wrong. We have this H & S bullshit because there are plenty of fuckwits in this world that can't mind their own fucken business.

[swbarnett]

An employer ... has no right to place its workers at risk.
This is a large part of the problem. It all sounds so sensible when phrased like this.

I agree with the above with one caveat - WITHIN REASON. And no H & S zealot is qualified to say what's reasonable for a given individual. Now, if an employee complained that they were being placed beyond the risk level that they were comfortable with then that would be another matter.

[Flip]

This is a large part of the problem. It all sounds so sensible when phrased like this.

I agree with the above with one caveat - WITHIN REASON. And no H & S zealot is qualified to say what's reasonable for a given individual. Now, if an employee complained that they were being placed beyond the risk level that they were comfortable with then that would be another matter.

The law says "all practical steps". I have been an engineer for 30+ years during this time I have had two fatial accidents at work. One was when a bundle of steel slipped out of a gangtry crane and hit a worker the second was at the Te papa site when a tilt slab fell on a man. I might suggest that once one of your work mates is killed at work your tune will change.

Sounds to me like a $20k after the company was told to smarten its H+S was a relatively small fine.

[Winston001]

I think it was $10 grand each offense, and they both had 2 offenses, or did I read it wrong.:confused:
Still excessive in my mind.

Yep you are correct. Four charges, $10,000 fine on each charge.

Lets face it - these people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. The elevator isn't going all the way to the top.

They were warned and warned...and warned. Stupid is as stupid does.

Hell I was brought up on a farm and nobody ever wore helmets. But motorcyclists didn't used to wear them either. No seatbelts in cars years ago.

Times change. We don't like it but its arrogant and pig-headed to think you can ignore this stuff. Which is what these dimwitted hillbillys did.

[Winston001]

Word to the wise.

These geniuses didn't bother going to the Court hearing, nor did they get a lawyer to represent them.

A well-constructed plea in mitigation from a lawyer would have halved the fines. Plus if it was me I'd have insisted they turn up, best dressed, and looking very sorry for themselves. Judges notice that stuff and it makes a big difference.

[oldrider]

Word to the wise.

These geniuses didn't bother going to the Court hearing, nor did they get a lawyer to represent them.

A well-constructed plea in mitigation from a lawyer would have halved the fines. Plus if it was me I'd have insisted they turn up, best dressed, and looking very sorry for themselves. Judges notice that stuff and it makes a big difference.

True Winston!

Hows that song go again - "I fought the law and the law won" - kinda situation! ... Underestimate your opposition at your peril! :kick:

[oneblackflag]

Hell I was brought up on a farm and nobody ever wore helmets. But motorcyclists didn't used to wear them either. No seatbelts in cars years ago.

Times change. We don't like it but its arrogant and pig-headed to think you can ignore this stuff. Which is what these dimwitted hillbillys did.

Yes one must follow every new law without complaint no matter how silly. Afterall we are all just mindless drones incapable of personal responsibility; working for TPTB.

How on earth did you survive your time not wearing a helmet? Oh things were different back then right? Now that it doesn't effect you, you're quite happy to call them dimwitted hillbillies... Yet you behaved in the same way :facepalm:

[Kickaha]

Oh things were different back then right?
Yes they were different, in that more people were killed and injured in workplace accidents

Personal responsibily? what a joke

[skippa1]

Yes they were different, in that more people were killed and injured in workplace accidents

Personal responsibily? what a joke
You dont or cant take responsibility for yourself?

[swbarnett]

The law says "all practical steps".
There in lies the rub. Who defines what is practical? Certainly OSH and it's ilk have proven themselves incapable of making this determination.


I have been an engineer for 30+ years during this time I have had two fatal accidents at work. One was when a bundle of steel slipped out of a gantry crane and hit a worker the second was at the Te papa site when a tilt slab fell on a man. I might suggest that once one of your work mates is killed at work your tune will change.
If I read this correctly you're saying that "all practical steps" were not taken to prevent these accidents? You may well be right, I have no idea. All I'm saying is that some know-it-all that doesn't work in the factory every day is in no position to judge either. To my mind the only person in a position to judge this is the employee (for themselves) or their immediate superior.


Sounds to me like a $20k after the company was told to smarten its H+S was a relatively small fine.
But without detailed knowledge of the exact circumstances of this particular farm who are we (or any outsider) to comment? Has their supposedly lacking H+S policy lead to an injury of any kind?

[swbarnett]

Times change.
Not always for the better.

[Tazz]

I think the fine for a death espcially in this case would be about half a mill, think 20k would be about right for giving the fingers to the DoL.

What you do at home is one thing, what you do at work is another. An employer, a company has to legally manage risk in the workplace and has no right to place its workers at risk.

How is what you do at home one thing? Because you don't want them there and think it would be overkill? Welcome to the point of view of a lot of the workplace rules.... If you're all for safety, practice what you preach.
Why should businesses compensate your lack of attention to safety at home because you think it isn't needed? Isn't that exactly the same argument employers use? Why is it not OK for them to disagree but it's ok for you when you don't even pay any ACC levies in an area that is over represented in accident stats?

Where does the buck stop? Once they are finished red taping workplaces for a bunch of dumb shit (some of it is needed for sure, don't get me wrong) don't for a second think they won't buy some more red tape and find the next thing to throw it at, then the next thing and the next.
They have to keep being seen to be justifying their existence otherwise they'd be out of a job.

You realize motorcycles are dangerous right? :laugh:

[Kickaha]

To my mind the only person in a position to judge this is the employee (for themselves) or their immediate superior.

To many employees are happy to take shortcuts and put themselves or others at risk and then the employer can get nailed for it


Little bit in the press today about a fatal quad bike accident, it claimed there were 850 farm related quad bike accidents a lot of which were head and chest injuries and 5 deaths for a 12 month period, the deaths were 28% of farm related fatalities

[swbarnett]

To many employees are happy to take shortcuts and put themselves or others at risk and then the employer can get nailed for it
That's why I included their immediate superior. That way the situation gets a second opinion.


Little bit in the press today about a fatal quad bike accident, it claimed there were 850 farm related quad bike accidents a lot of which were head and chest injuries and 5 deaths for a 12 month period, the deaths were 28% of farm related fatalities
Which means nothing until you judge that against how many quad-bike hours there were in the same period.


People die. It's a necessary part of life. Without this inalienable fact there would be no life, only existence.

[Flip]

There in lies the rub. Who defines what is practical? Certainly OSH and it's ilk have proven themselves incapable of making this determination.


If I read this correctly you're saying that "all practical steps" were not taken to prevent these accidents? You may well be right, I have no idea. All I'm saying is that some know-it-all that doesn't work in the factory every day is in no position to judge either. To my mind the only person in a position to judge this is the employee (for themselves) or their immediate superior.


But without detailed knowledge of the exact circumstances of this particular farm who are we (or any outsider) to comment? Has their supposedly lacking H+S policy lead to an injury of any kind?


How is what you do at home one thing? Because you don't want them there and think it would be overkill? Welcome to the point of view of a lot of the workplace rules.... If you're all for safety, practice what you preach.
Why should businesses compensate your lack of attention to safety at home because you think it isn't needed? Isn't that exactly the same argument employers use? Why is it not OK for them to disagree but it's ok for you when you don't even pay any ACC levies in an area that is over represented in accident stats?

Where does the buck stop? Once they are finished red taping workplaces for a bunch of dumb shit (some of it is needed for sure, don't get me wrong) don't for a second think they won't buy some more red tape and find the next thing to throw it at, then the next thing and the next.
They have to keep being seen to be justifying their existence otherwise they'd be out of a job.

You realize motorcycles are dangerous right? :laugh:


This was the fine for the bosses, the directors and the owners of a company when it the company was seen doing dumb shit.

It really sucks not to be the boss, hum?

I am assuming you do think it is a good idea to wear a helmet on a motorcycle?

[oneblackflag]

This was the fine for the bosses, the directors and the owners of a company when it the company was seen doing dumb shit.

It really sucks not to be the boss, hum?

I am assuming you do think it is a good idea to wear a helmet on a motorcycle?


The bosses are the workers in this case and alot of farms. Heaven forbid they create and follow their own safety policy... They'd have no idea, best left to pen pushers whose imaginations can run wild in the office.

Of course it is in most situations, a good idea to wear a helmet. At what point is it ok not too? You can ride a quad on the road <30kph legaly without a helmet but not on a surface its designed for :rolleyes:. Do you have any idea of the on/off the bike, short distance here/there low speed nature of farm bike operation MOST of the time? It would end up being less of a Hassel to wear it all day (lovely in summer).

[oneblackflag]

Little bit in the press today about a fatal quad bike accident, it claimed there were 850 farm related quad bike accidents a lot of which were head and chest injuries and 5 deaths for a 12 month period, the deaths were 28% of farm related fatalities

28%... Shit now we've sorted that out through compulsory helmets, should drop to about 5% (Tui). So now to root out the other 95%. I wonder if helmets in tractors could help...:wait: defiantly high viz

[Kickaha]

28%... Shit now we've sorted that out through compulsory helmets, should drop to about 5% (Tui). So now to root out the other 95%. I wonder if helmets in tractors could help...:wait: defiantly high viz

Seeing as you're so good at guessing figures tell us how much would it decrease the injuries in the other 845 non fatal quad bike accidents?

[swbarnett]

I am assuming you do think it is a good idea to wear a helmet on a motorcycle?
I wear one when on the bike. My choice. It's mostly for weather protection. I've been known to ride around camp sites with it over my arm.

I have no problem if someone decides not to wear one. I gave up cycling mostly because I over-heated wearing one.

[oneblackflag]

Seeing as you're so good at guessing figures tell us how much would it decrease the injuries in the other 845 non fatal quad bike accidents?

Possibly 9% but likely lower as quad bike use has dropped over the last few years. I note death rates have remained flat aswell as quad bike serious harm notifications. Strange seeing compulsory helmets are a magic pill.

http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/national-programmes/quad-bike-safety/statistics

https://agrihq.co.nz/article/quad-code-urged-for-rural-sector-?p=7%3Fp%3D22

[Ocean1]

To many employees are happy to take shortcuts and put themselves or others at risk and then the employer can get nailed for it


Yes. Who's responsible for the actions of those who get injured? If you figure it's the boss/govt then we're all done, I can't help you. But if you figure each individual is responsible for their own actions then why are employers being persecuted for the failure of their employees?


Little bit in the press today about a fatal quad bike accident, it claimed there were 850 farm related quad bike accidents a lot of which were head and chest injuries and 5 deaths for a 12 month period, the deaths were 28% of farm related fatalities

That wasn't the same article that informed us that stat's for workplace vehicle injuries didn't differentiate between quads, bikes, trikes, tractors etc was it? The same article that said that this year was the first where quads were less safe than tractors?

[Tazz]

This was the fine for the bosses, the directors and the owners of a company when it the company was seen doing dumb shit.

It really sucks not to be the boss, hum?

I am assuming you do think it is a good idea to wear a helmet on a motorcycle?

They are the farm managers.

I work for a family business, it is in my best interests to know where the buck stops (I'm not a flippant employee).

Yes and no. Every farm is different and most of it is slow speed (<20) on any farm I've been on. As a rule yes in some respects you'd be better with a lid on your swede, but it isn't always practical and like crossing the road without wearing full body armor, you take risks in life, what should be controlled this way and where people should be left to fend for themselves is something I deem more important looking at where things are heading in the long term.

I'd have to look to be 100% but I feel safe in saving statiscally you are probably more likely to hurt yourself at home/there are more accidents in the domus than there are from farmers pottering around the farm on a quad so, again, why do they have to wear a helmet on the quad and get such wrath for not and you don't walking up those concrete steps to the back door in the rain? Why is it OK for you to be so self righteous about them on one hand and then put yourself in that sort of danger at ACC's expense on the other?

And my motorcycle comment was more poking fun at the fact you ride one when you're pushing that you're all about that safety :bleh:

[Kickaha]

That wasn't the same article that informed us that stat's for workplace vehicle injuries didn't differentiate between quads, bikes, trikes, tractors etc was it? The same article that said that this year was the first where quads were less safe than tractors?

Don't think so, it was part of a coroners report about a farmer who had been drinking who crashed a quad and died, they were talking specifically about quads


Strange seeing compulsory helmets are a magic pill.
Can you point out where anyone has actually said that?

[Flip]

They are the farm managers.

I work for a family business, it is in my best interests to know where the buck stops (I'm not a flippant employee).

Yes and no. Every farm is different and most of it is slow speed (<20) on any farm I've been on. As a rule yes in some respects you'd be better with a lid on your swede, but it isn't always practical and like crossing the road without wearing full body armor, you take risks in life, what should be controlled this way and where people should be left to fend for themselves is something I deem more important looking at where things are heading in the long term.

I'd have to look to be 100% but I feel safe in saving statiscally you are probably more likely to hurt yourself at home/there are more accidents in the domus than there are from farmers pottering around the farm on a quad so, again, why do they have to wear a helmet on the quad and get such wrath for not and you don't walking up those concrete steps to the back door in the rain? Why is it OK for you to be so self righteous about them on one hand and then put yourself in that sort of danger at ACC's expense on the other?

And my motorcycle comment was more poking fun at the fact you ride one when you're pushing that you're all about that safety :bleh:

Because at home you have nobody to blame but yourself. At work not just yourself that gets hurt but the company and the others who work there are held legally accountable.

If its not practical or convenient to wear the PPE, consider an engineering solution, in this case those wee 4wd muel trucks that have roll cages and seat belts.

If you think I am self reightous it is because I have been involved in two fatial accidents while I have been working. In both cases the workers were taking short cuts and were in places they should not have been. In one, it certanly was inconvenient for the worker to take the long way around and not walk under the crane to get to the tea room. You could also say it was impractical for the company to have a better laid out workplace which would eliminate the hazard. My self reightousness comes from having to hose down the area where a coligue lost his life.

[oneblackflag]

Can you point out where anyone has actually said that?

No as I didn't suggest anyone had.

Given a possible 9% reduction of injury do you still feel it best they be mandatory and a $15k penalty for non compliance? Remember it is legal to operate a quad on the road with no helmet <30kph

[swbarnett]

In both cases the workers were taking short cuts and were in places they should not have been.
Which just goes to show that enforcing PPE is not always the solution. These two obviously didn't act appropriately in the situation they found themselves.

Those that choose to use their brain shouldn't be made to don PPE that is therefore not required.

One of the things that I will never forget about Switzerland was the building sites I saw in Basel. Not a hard-hat in site. Instead I saw the cleanest building site it's ever been my pleasure to witness. Nothing at all to trip over. All this was under a tall crane. All the workers knew where the crane's load was and didn't stand under it.

Similarly the road works didn't have any sort of cordon. Pedestrians would walk right behind the digger, well within the swing radius. Over there people just took responsibility for themselves.


There is really only one piece of PPE that is required in most situations. The one between the ears.

[Tazz]

Because at home you have nobody to blame but yourself. At work not just yourself that gets hurt but the company and the others who work there are held legally accountable.

If its not practical or convenient to wear the PPE, consider an engineering solution, in this case those wee 4wd muel trucks that have roll cages and seat belts.

If you think I am self reightous it is because I have been involved in two fatial accidents while I have been working. In both cases the workers were taking short cuts and were in places they should not have been. In one, it certanly was inconvenient for the worker to take the long way around and not walk under the crane to get to the tea room. You could also say it was impractical for the company to have a better laid out workplace which would eliminate the hazard. My self reightousness comes from having to hose down the area where a coligue lost his life.

I'm going to sound like a complete asshole but that's nothing new :laugh:.....there is no amount of health and safety legislation that will save a mans life who is that lazy he will walk under a crane carrying tilt slab. It is tragic you had to see it and clean it up, but people who put themselves in that position only have themselves to blame. He might have been the worlds nicest guy but it was a bad call.
That is like saying all quad riders should have to dress like the michelin man because one farmer decided to drive off a ravine while drunk. No amount of rules will save some people from bad decisions because it is simply built into us to sometimes make mistakes for a huge variety of reasons. You can lessen the risk, yes, but at what point does that become counter productive to actually getting things done/living not in fear of everything.

Other than location and extremity, he is no different than someone who gets crushed under their car at home because they thought' she'll be right, I'll just nip under' and made the call not to use an axle stand. The axle stands might be right there beside him.
If it happened at work, the axle stands right beside him, it was still his choice to cut the corner so why should the employer be made an example of?
I'm sure there is no way the employer of the guy who got crushed would be telling him it is OK to save a minute or two walk to the smoko room buy frolicing under a few tons of concrete...and it is not their responsibility to lay out the work site so workers get the most efficient route to their lunch box either.

I don't really think your self righteous, I just don't understand the logic behind a double standard for your workplace and your home when it is the same person doing the decision making.

[caspernz]

I don't really think your self righteous, I just don't understand the logic behind a double standard for your workplace and your home when it is the same person doing the decision making.

The difference? Dumb decision at workplace by risk tolerant employee...the boss gets stung. At home it's on your own head. Kinda simple I think?

[Tazz]

The difference? Dumb decision at workplace by risk tolerant employee...the boss gets stung. At home it's on your own head. Kinda simple I think?

No shit :bleh: but he's essentially arguing that's OK, it should be legislated, monitored and enforced to fuck at the workplace at the cost of the employer/self employed yet you can take your own stupidity home and hurt yourself and or your family where you're not paying levies like your boss and that's OK. Double standard.

If its all about safety,


ahh fuck I can't be arsed, scroll back, it's all there :laugh:

Common sense safety = old hat.

Over the top rules by people who have no idea wtf they're doing themselves = all the rage.

[Flip]

Risk takers don't last long in industry these days. There is no industry that has any tollerance for thrill seakers. They end up sacked or on full time 80% ACC employment.

The point I am maiking is that the employer is responsible for H+S in the workplace. The farm managers-directors thumbed their noses at the courts and will have to pay the price. The courts are hard on dumb asses.

Oh and 33 children have lost their lives on quads in the last 10 years.

[ellipsis]

...bureaucrats filing paperwork... minions enacting on that authority... fooling enough of the people to forgo their rights, 'cos they are scared of the bureaucrats dogged power... 'cos that bureaucratic power comes from the kings henchman...

...and there's money in them there cows...just another booming target...monetary, not safety directed...the more fucks that believe them, the easier the kings henchmen have it... there's documented stuff from over a few thousand years of the same story being told...just life, kiddies...

[oneblackflag]

Risk takers don't last long in industry these days. There is no industry that has any tollerance for thrill seakers. They end up sacked or on full time 80% ACC employment.

The point I am maiking is that the employer is responsible for H+S in the workplace. The farm managers-directors thumbed their noses at the courts and will have to pay the price. The courts are hard on dumb asses.

Oh and 33 children have lost their lives on quads in the last 10 years.

No helmet tootling around the farm = thrill seeking? You should get out more.

How many of those children would have lived if they had a helmet on? How many were working on a farm at the time?

[swbarnett]

the employer is responsible for H+S in the workplace.
This is the bad message that's being sent. When in actual fact it's everybody's responsibility.