Elfen Safety on Top Gear

[Horse]

I work for a company where you can't far . . . errr . . . can't do anything . . . unless you have an appropriate risk assessment in place, proper briefings have been done, and ethics approval gained when necessary (and that's more often than you might expect for the sort of stuff we often do). We even have H&S policy for using the stairs - really!

So when someone asked me how Top Gear get away with all the stuff they do on-road (the 'boats', stretch limos, etc.) - let alone the track stuff - I really couldn't answer.

Anyone have any ideas?

[martine]

I work for a company where you can't far . . . errr . . . can't do anything . . . unless you have an appropriate risk assessment in place, proper briefings have been done, and ethics approval gained when necessary (and that's more often than you might expect for the sort of stuff we often do). We even have H&S policy for using the stairs - really!

So when someone asked me how Top Gear get away with all the stuff they do on-road (the 'boats', stretch limos, etc.) - let alone the track stuff - I really couldn't answer.

Anyone have any ideas?

I suspect your company or it's advisors have chosen an interpretation of the H&S laws which is rather extreme. We have a H&S professional in my business networking group and he is forever going on about how some companies just go way OTT and give H&S a bad name.

Having said that, some of the stuff TopGear does, does look fairly risky but perhaps that's just smoke and mirrors...I sure the BBC will have 'risk assessed' everything and minimised the risks and are therefore quite legal. They must have some interesting meetings though!

[jont]

I suspect your company or it's advisors have chosen an interpretation of the H&S laws which is rather extreme. We have a H&S professional in my business networking group and he is forever going on about how some companies just go way OTT and give H&S a bad name.

/cynic - or the advisors are keen to make sure they sustain employment or grow their empire justifying their importance with the amount of paperwork "needed". Afterall, how easy is it to challenge the need for H&S guff? Is it sufficient to have something that says "Don't be a twat"?

[7db]

BBC do quite extensive risk assessments for things like Top Gear. If you trawl through the aftermath of the NearlyDeadHamster incident, much was made of it. I'm sure anyone who asks you can be bored to tears by referring them to the documents.

[Horse]

I suspect your company or it's advisors have chosen an interpretation of the H&S laws which is rather extreme. We have a H&S professional in my business networking group and he is forever going on about how some companies just go way OTT and give H&S a bad name.

/cynic - or the advisors are keen to make sure they sustain employment or grow their empire justifying their importance with the amount of paperwork "needed". Afterall, how easy is it to challenge the need for H&S guff? Is it sufficient to have something that says "Don't be a twat"?

Well, let's just say that it would be a big professional embarrassment if something we were involved with went messily wrong

That said, when I brief a team prior to work, I include words to the effect of "I want everyone back with all their bits attached and working".

I also tell them to:
a. Not do anything they think is stupid
b. Stop anyone else they think is about to do something stupid
c. Tell me if I'm going to do something stupid

TBH I don't mind doing risk assessments, as they force you to take a mental pause and think.

Someone recently asked what my job is? 'Professional pessamist', I replied.


Re: Top Gear, the 'boats' and stretch limos (like the one which fell apart) spring to mind as being particularly bad, but the Vietnam (Cambodia?) motorcycle trip had severe potential for going badly wrong (eg the collander 'helmet', quality of machines, adverse weather conditions, etc.)

[Horse]

I suspect your company or it's advisors have chosen an interpretation of the H&S laws which is rather extreme.

Acksherley . . . I did a course here on H&S for team managers, and the [external] trainer said that our risk assessment sheets were one of the simplest formats he'd seen.

[Gromit37]

H & S has gone mad. When I worked at the Uni, we were supposed to go on a course to go above two feet off the ground when using a ladder/stepladder. Personally, I think it is great that Top Gear do wacky things... but there will always be the right people, with the right skills to make sure nothing serious is likely to happen, and if it does, they will be prepared. Preparation and planning are key. Unfortunately, most 'accidents' happen because people do neither.

Before long, rock climbing, parachuting, abseiling, boxing, martial arts, rallying and such like will be regulated out of existance or made so 'safe' nobody will do them anyway. Call me cynical and pessimistic... but if you do I'll call 'Libel Lawyers for U'

[TripleS]

H & S has gone mad. When I worked at the Uni, we were supposed to go on a course to go above two feet off the ground when using a ladder/stepladder. Personally, I think it is great that Top Gear do wacky things... but there will always be the right people, with the right skills to make sure nothing serious is likely to happen, and if it does, they will be prepared. Preparation and planning are key. Unfortunately, most 'accidents' happen because people do neither.

Before long, rock climbing, parachuting, abseiling, boxing, martial arts, rallying and such like will be regulated out of existance or made so 'safe' nobody will do them anyway. Call me cynical and pessimistic... but if you do I'll call 'Libel Lawyers for U'

Well said that man.

Thank goodness that wretched man Brown has gone from office, otherwise I think your fears would have been justified. I'm just hoping that the present government will get rid of some of this ridiculour H & S stuff, and indeed excessive regulation generally, but we'll see.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jont]

To be fair to the H&S people, a lot of what's brought in seems to be out of fear of litigation from ambulance chasing lawyers. Even if the defence is straightforward, it's time consuming and expensive to go to court. I'd like to see some more common sense and self-responsibility brought in to prevent such actions. Making the legal leeches redundant and forcing them to look for more productive careers can only be a good thing for society in general.

[GJD]

To be fair to the H&S people, a lot of what's brought in seems to be out of fear of litigation from ambulance chasing lawyers.

Indeed. If elf an safety's gone mad, it's only because of the underlying problem: too many people who can only conceive of themselves as the victim, never the one responsible. If the cultural belief is that when something bad happens it must be because someone else is to blame, it's hardly surprising if we tend towards a state where we'd prefer to just stop everybody else from doing things.

[MGF]

What are the chances of you claiming on someone's car insurance if you felt they were to 'blame' for damage to your property or injury to yourself?

To be fair to the H&S people, a lot of what's brought in seems to be out of fear of litigation from ambulance chasing lawyers. Even if the defence is straightforward, it's time consuming and expensive to go to court.

A case with no merit can be struck out without a full hearing. If it goes to a full hearing and the claimant loses he is generally liable for the defendant's costs. It is misconceived to fear litigation. So is using derogatory language to describe personal injury lawyers.

Bringing a claim is expensive, time consuming as well as extremely stressful for the claimant. Have you ever heard a successful claimant say they thought their compensation made their injury worthwhile?

[GJD]

It is misconceived to fear litigation.

Is it, if litigation is expensive, time consuming and stressful? (To whatever extent those factors apply to a claimant as you suggest, I think they would apply equally to the defendant).

[Gromit37]

"I was working on a job where I was given the wrong type of ladder. I fell and..."

And you didn't have to use the ladder, you should have known before using it and nobody forced you to climb the damn thing. But you can claim and it won't cost *you* a penny. Hah!

Half the adverts on tv seem to be along these lines. Money grabbing, opportunistic lawyers taking advantage of a 'victim' oriented culture. Makes me cringe to think we've sunk to that level.

[michael769]

Is it, if litigation is expensive, time consuming and stressful? (To whatever extent those factors apply to a claimant as you suggest, I think they would apply equally to the defendant).

Very true.

Although the winning party normally does get their legal costs paid. The reality is that the financial costs do not cover all of the expenses and hassle that raising or defending an action brings. I have seen many defendants pay up to avoid court even though they have a good case simply because the relatively modest amount involved is not worth the hassle and bother. And I have seen as many genuine claimants drop claims for the same reason.

On the other hand it is true that many organizations fear of being sued is not well founded. In reality their real fear is in the negative publicity that surrounds such incidents.

Hypothetically, 75 year old Mary from Bloggstown's fall may have mainly been her own fault for not looking where she put her feet around the vegetable counter but that will not stop the tabloid media putting her bruised face on the front page to demonize Evil Mart for allowing another customer to drop a grape on the floor!

[MGF]

It is misconceived to fear litigation.

Is it, if litigation is expensive, time consuming and stressful? (To whatever extent those factors apply to a claimant as you suggest, I think they would apply equally to the defendant).

Of course, if you are negligent, you should fear litigation but there should be no fear from unmeritorious claims. At least not from the claimant.

Outside of motoring and clinical negligence claims most defendants are organisations not individuals and in any event it is the insurance company that deals with the claim and suffers the financial loss.

Do you think organisations experience stress as individuals do? Do you think organisations might be better funded than individuals? (It is quite common for defendants to attempt to 'price' claimants out of proceedings).

Would you put a motorist through the stress of litigation to recover the costs of personal injury to yourself caused by their negligence?

"I was working on a job where I was given the wrong type of ladder. I fell and..."

And you didn't have to use the ladder, you should have known before using it and nobody forced you to climb the damn thing. But you can claim and it won't cost *you* a penny...

I don't know what kind of employment you are used to but plenty of employees do not feel sufficiently empowered to refuse to work in situations where there is an unacceptable risk. Indeed employment law only protects you from unfair dismissal if you refuse to work when the risk is serious and imminent. (And of course that involves being dismissed and succesfully claiming at tribunal).