Category Archives: Health and Safety


Noise health surveillance below action levels

Risk Assessment Services

Noise health surveillance below action levels

Question
We have employees who have to use various items of powered tools to undertake their work activities. One employee has requested that we undertake health surveillance for them in relation to noise exposure even though our assessment indicates noise levels are below the legal action values. Are we obliged to provide such health surveillance?

Answer
Under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, employers have a duty to eliminate or control the risks from exposure to noise or reduce exposure to as low as reasonably practicable.

Under Regulation 9 of the above regulations, if the risk assessment indicates that there is a risk to the health of his employees who are or are liable to be exposed to noise, “the employer shall ensure that such employees are placed under suitable health surveillance, which shall include testing of their hearing”.

The aims are primarily to safeguard the health of workers (including identifying and protecting individuals at increased risk), but also to check the long-term effectiveness of measures used to control risks to health.

It is important to note that this requirement is not linked to any of the exposure action values set within the regulations. The key to the requirement is whether the risk assessment indicates a risk to workers’ health — that is from exposure to noise without taking into account the noise reduction provided by hearing protection.

Guidance to the regulations then states that “there is strong evidence to show that frequent exposure above the upper exposure action values can pose a risk to health”. It then recommends that employers provide health surveillance to workers frequently exposed above the upper exposure action values.

Where exposure is between the lower and upper exposure action values, or where employees are only occasionally exposed above upper exposure action values, the guidance recommends that employers should provide health surveillance if the assessment has identified that an individual may be particularly sensitive to noise and noise induced hearing loss.

This can be identified through past medical history, audiometric test results from previous jobs, other independent assessments or a history of exposure to noise levels exceeding the upper exposure action values. Some employees may also indicate a family history of becoming deaf early on in life.

As the exposure action values are not being exceeded, it is highly unlikely that health surveillance is required in this case, but it may be advisable to keep the situation under review and more specific medical evidence sought as to the individual’s sensitivity.

Contact us for further information.

 

Revised Highway Code — protecting the most vulnerable

Following a consultation on proposed changes, the Department for Transport (DfT) has announced that the Highway Code will get a major revision on 29 January 2022. Here, we look at the main rule changes and what they mean for professional drivers.

Rule H1: Hierarchy of road users

The most significant change is the decision to introduce a hierarchy of road users. This states that, in any interaction between users, those who can cause the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they pose to others. The DfT points out that the road users most likely to be injured in the event of a collision are pedestrians, in particular children, older adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists.

Introducing new Rule H1, the Code states: “The objective of the hierarchy is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users.”

However, while the DfT makes clear that cyclists, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles all have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians, the hierarchy principle puts most responsibility on the drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, followed by vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

Reacting to the proposals, Stephen Edwards of the Living Streets charity said: “The Highway Code currently treats children walking to school and lorry drivers as if they are equally responsible for their own or other people’s safety. These changes will redress that balance.”

Rule H2: Pedestrian priority

The second major change to the Code aims to clarify existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements and to emphasise that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road. The new Rule H2 will create clearer and stronger priorities for pedestrians, particularly at junctions, and clarify where they have right of way. It will introduce a responsibility for drivers and riders to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a side road, junction or zebra crossing.

In turn, pedestrians are reminded that they share some routes with cyclists and horse riders and, while these riders should respect the safety of pedestrians, those on foot must also take care not to obstruct these other road users unnecessarily.

Rule H3: Guidance for cyclists

The Code now places a requirement on drivers to give priority to cyclists when they are turning into or out of a junction, or changing direction or lane, just as they would to other motor vehicles. As it is proposing to provide strengthened guidance to ensure safe cycling, the DfT notes that there is considerable new text within the “Rules for cyclists” chapter.

Rule H3 now tells cyclists that, if they are going straight ahead at a junction, they have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. Cyclists are also reminded of the need to be particularly careful alongside lorries and other long vehicles, as they may not be visible to the drivers. Such vehicles may have to move over to the right before turning left, and their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning.

Cyclists should ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so, the Code goes on. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it recognises that it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast. In addition, they must take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door’s width or 0.5 metres) to avoid being hit if a door opens unexpectedly and they have a responsibility to make sure it is safe before moving away from the kerb, when pulling out to overtake or to pass stationary vehicles, or when turning at junctions or stopping. “When the traffic lights are red,” the Code states, “you may cross the first stop line, but you MUST NOT cross the final stop line.”

Passing distances

One part of the consultation which produced a mixed response was the proposal on passing distances (Rule 163) detailed when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles. Some respondents thought that two metres was too large a gap for overtaking cyclists or horse riders and would prevent drivers from overtaking on many country roads, leading to frustration and non-compliance. Conversely, feedback also suggested that two metres is not a sufficient passing distance and space should be allowed in case a cyclist were to fall. Generally, it was thought that the rule is too complicated and a safe passing distance of two metres in all cases would avoid confusion. Drivers should therefore leave a distance of at least 1.5m when overtaking such road users.

Horse riders

As an example of the way the Code makes plain everyone’s responsibility for safety on the roads, the “Rules about animals” chapter will be updated to suggest that those new to horse riding, or those who have not ridden for a while, should consider a training course and taking the Ride Safe Award from the British Horse Society. However, there was some objection to this proposal with some respondents arguing that it discriminates against horse riders by putting the onus on them to take training when it is other road users that are the problem and the cause of accidents.

Those who disagreed with the change were concerned that lack of training might be used as a driver’s defence in the event of collisions or used unfavourably in any insurance claim, particularly as horses can be unpredictable and training will not necessarily prevent this.

The changes are not new legislation

Feedback to the consultation generally suggested that there should be more emphasis on the extra care required when overtaking horses and horse-drawn vehicles, and at junctions. The DfT noted a feeling that too much priority is being given to cyclists and not enough emphasis on cyclist responsibility for their own safety.

Emphasising that the changes are advisory and not legislative, it said: “The new rule to give priority to cyclists going straight ahead does not seek to change the law but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users. You should not cut across a cyclist just like you would not cut across another motorist.”

Contact us if you require further information.

 

Homeworkers: Quick Facts

home office

Homeworkers: Quick Facts

Homeworkers are those employed to work at home or in other premises of their own choice other than the workplace of the employer. Homeworking is not a specific job in itself but a method of working which can be relevant to many job roles.

Homeworkers are covered by health and safety law in the same way as any other employed worker, but as this topic describes, there are a range of issues specific to these workers that must be considered in order to keep them safe in their homes.

Some tips

  • Employers should keep in touch with lone workers, including those working from home, and ensure regular contact to make sure they are healthy and safe. Social Isolation
  • Working from home can bring benefits both to the employee in terms of flexibility and to the employer in terms of reduced overhead costs.
  • Siting the home office is an important consideration; segregation is preferred, followed by locking equipment away when not in use. Siting a Home Office
  • Employers are required to assess all significant risks and to make adequate arrangements for managing the risks to homeworkers. Risk Assessments for Homeworking
  • If display screen equipment (DSE) is to be used, employers must ensure that a DSE assessment is carried out with the homeworker and that health and safety requirements are met, including eye tests and the provision of appropriate equipment. Display Screen Equipment
  • Employers must ensure that any substances are assessed and suitably controlled and should provide appropriate personal protective equipment. Hazardous Substances
  • Homeworkers should be trained in the use of any equipment provided, which should be suitable for the job, regularly maintained and appropriately guarded.

Contact us for further information

 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

As we face another uncertain Christmas, we think about the Christmases of the past and plan for the holiday safely with loved ones in mind. It is the time of the year when we create happy memories that will last a lifetime.

We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year!

All the best for 2022!

 

Fire door inspection regime

risk-assessment

Fire door inspection regime

Question We have several properties that are fitted with numerous timber-based fire doors. It has been suggested that we should be inspecting these regularly. Is this the case and how often should this be done as it could have significant resource issues?

Answer A fire door is a complex structure that consists of various elements that must be designed, installed and, very importantly, maintained so as to ensure the fire resistance performance requirements are achieved when required to do so.

Apart from maintaining compartmentation, the other main function of fire doors is to allow access and pedestrian traffic flow. This can lead to deterioration, wear/tear and damage to fittings or door elements due to repeated operation and/or abuse.

Article 17 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (or its equivalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland) requires the responsible person to ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment or devices are subject to a “suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair”.

BS8214:2016 Timber-based Fire Door Assemblies. Code of Practice makes reference to this requirement while guidance from the Chief Fire Officers Association states that maintenance regimes should include “inspection and testing by a competent person, as necessary at suitable intervals”.

To meet this regulatory requirement, there are various good practice guides that can be followed to inform the responsible person as to frequency of inspections.

For example, BS9999:2017 Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings. Code of Practice recommends that automatic release devices are tested daily and monthly, while fire doors themselves are inspected every six-months.

However, BS8214 and guidance from the Architectural and Specialist Door Manufacturers Association (ASMA) suggest that the frequency of inspection can be determined according to the risk assessment and relative to the frequency of use of the doorway.

In general, frequently used doors (eg less than 80 times in a 24-hour period) could be inspected monthly and high usage doors (eg more than 200 times in a 24-hour period) weekly.

This could have resource implications where numerous doors are involved and as such, other factors could be taken into consideration as part of the assessment including the:

  • criticality of the door in terms of function and life safety or asset protection
  • likelihood of the door being damaged by impact and/or abuse.

Any decisions on the inspection regime should be recorded along with the rationale and kept under review to adapt to any changes in circumstances. It should be remembered that the fire strategy for buildings almost always assumes that fire doors operate as they were designed to, ie why appropriate maintenance is essential.

Contact us for further information.