Why do health and safety people have to be so pedantic?

There is seldom any leniency when it comes to H&S. Mate of mine is being fined for speeding. He wasnt doing 100mph+. Nor was he doing 45mph past a busy pub full of pissheads on Friday night. He was doing 35 in a 30 which was also a dual carriageway. In this case wouldnt an official warning suffice? If someone was out to deliberately speed, they would likely be doing much more than 5mph over the limit. I was once in a car where the stupid khunt hit 70mph in a 30, no speed cams that day (40mph over). A prosecution for 5mph, for fudge sake!
It gets no better off the road. At work you can get told off for not bending your knees enough, or stepping on a wooden pallet. For fudge sake, I know I shouldnt bend my back, or that I may get splinters in my foot, just let me get on with my job and F.O! If I come a cropper then thats my liability as I have already been informed of H&S.
Hi vis improves your visibility dramatically at night. In the day tho, they are next to useless. In some situations I find that the hi vis vest can catch on edges of things so they are in fact a hindrance. But we have to wear one even in broad daylight so that we wont get attacked by a stray polar bear.

Health and safety is a joke these days. It isnt good if people are taking actual safety as a joke is it?

(edited 7 years ago)

Health and safety people have to be pedantic, because lawyers will be pedantic, and those lawyers will be hired by people who get injured because the health and safety guidelines weren't pedantic enough.

You can moan all you like, but the reason it's there isn't because the company is trying to make your life awkward, but due to fear of suing from your fellow coworkers.

Reply 3

Pinkberry_y

Get rid of injury lawyers for you companies then we'll be able to get away with being less pedantic

Reply 4

thegodofgod

Don't Delay, Claim Today!

Reply 5

Dez

Doing 35 in a 30 is actually pretty dangerous. Your stopping distance increases, and if you hit something, the impact will cause more damage. I've heard it said that hitting a pedestrian at 30 and they'll be taken away in an ambulance, but hit them at 35 and they're likely to be taken away in a hearse. A bit over-dramatic (and probably wrong half the time), but you get the point. Doing 90 on a 70 or even 50 in a 40 is, by comparison, much safer.

Reply 6

Trinculo

A lot of examples of H&S that sound silly have no basis in reality - that is they are usually the product of an untrained person who likes the idea of telling other people what to do.

When you hear stories of things like white sticks being banned in a school ; you can usually bet that what has happened has not been the result of any proper H&S procedure, but someone relatively minor in the organisation who likes to end discussions with "Health & Safety". They can normally not produce any actual risk assessment or procedure.

The HSE has a part of its site where you can ask questions about silly restrictions and the HSE come across as very reasonable and sensible.

Reply 7

kimkarsd

it depends, speeding is against the law. he has no case in court, even if he has a moral case.

Reply 8

Tiger Rag

I don't think the speeding thing has anything to do with H&S. If he's allowed to get away with 35 in a 30, then what's the point of it being a 30?

Reply 9

That Bearded Man

Health and Safety is a joke, blame the lawsuits and compensation claims.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 10

Laomedeia

Original post by Tiger Rag

I don't think the speeding thing has anything to do with H&S. If he's allowed to get away with 35 in a 30, then what's the point of it being a 30?

Its called leniency. Zero tolerance has its place, usually in a military setting or at high level competitions. I dont think benign infringements are worth ****ing people about over.

Reply 11

Dez

Original post by Laomedeia

Its called leniency. Zero tolerance has its place, usually in a military setting or at high level competitions. I dont think benign infringements are worth ****ing people about over.

So you wouldn't mind if someone robbed you at gunpoint and took £20?

Reply 12

Good bloke

Original post by Laomedeia

For fudge sake, I know I shouldnt bend my back

You shouldn't bend anything for the sake of fudge. It can get you into a very sticky situation.

Reply 13

Laomedeia

Original post by Dez

So you wouldn't mind if someone robbed you at gunpoint and took £20?

No, but if I was unemployed, I would mind greatly to have to fork out my own money for non specialised safety training (CSCS) before I can even apply for, let alone obtain certain jobs that dont require much skills. Safety is important, but things are taken way too far.

Reply 14

Dheorl

Original post by Laomedeia

Its called leniency. Zero tolerance has its place, usually in a military setting or at high level competitions. I dont think benign infringements are worth ****ing people about over.

The problem is not adopting a policy of zero tolerance is a slippery slope. Having said that there isn't a policy of zero tolerance on speeding, I think normally 10% is allowed to account for speedos (especially older ones) not being 100% accurate. Your friend however was outside the bounds of normal tolerance.