Ouch. Now that's a Fine!

[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?

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 . 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... 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... 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...ety/statistics

https://agrihq.co.nz/article/quad-co...-?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

[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

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 .....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?