Work at Height Regulations with Respect to Working at the Back of Vehicles - Literature review Example

LITERATURE REVIEW “The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are raising awareness of a specific area of falls from height relating to vehicles. This focuses on operatives involved with loading and unloading vehicles on Construction Sites. HSE Inspectors will be increasingly be (sic) looking to companies to comply with the law and provide measures to reduce risk of workers falling from vehicles.” (HSE Information sheet WPT01) An estimated three million people work on or near vehicles in Great Britain as a part of their regular jobs (HSE 2007/WPT-05). Working at the back of vehicles entails the process of loading and unloading the vehicles using manual or mechanical means. Employee safety is costly. The direct and indirect costs related to the issue of employee safety are high in economic terms. A great sum of money is lost through loss of wages, workers’ compensation, medical benefits and lost working days. Industrial workers are exposed to the hazards of work at heights that include falls from a height which is the most common cause of fatal injury. This is, historically, the second most common cause of major injury for workers in the UK (Wearing et al. 2007). The Work at Height Regulations, 2005 (SI No. 735) (WAHR), as amended by the Work at Height (Amendment) Regulations, 2007, impose health and safety requirements applicable to all work activity at height. The WAHR was introduced in the UK as part of a European Directive on work at height (the Temporary Work Directive (2001/45/EC) to reduce work related falls from height. These regulations were brought into force with a view to prevent the deaths and injuries caused each year by falls at work (HMSO (a), 2007). The Regulation was amended through The Work at Height (Amendment) Regulations 2007. These new Regulations came into effect from April 6, 2005 and the amendment from April 6, 2007. The most significant part of the amendment was the deletion of the ‘Two Meter Rule’. Earlier the regulations applied only to work carried out at heights exceeding two meters but the elimination of this minimum brought a host of activities into the ambit of the regulations. Significantly the area that was affected the most was the operations at the back of vehicles. Loading and unloading of vehicles is usually carried out at heights not exceeding two meters and yet have been the cause of a large number of workplace accidents often fatal. In view of the amendment it is important to understand the impact and constraints imposed by WAHR on work at the back of vehicles. Accidents, especially where they involve loss of human limb and life, are usually preventable through implementation of practical and prudent safety measures. At the same time there is the consideration of overdoing safety precautions leading to waste of time and productivity. Overdoing safety measures has a major downside in that it can lead to overconfidence among the workforce and lead to accidents. It is therefore required to determine the optimal safety measures. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published some guidelines and research reports on this area which are used to inform the following discussions. The impact and considerations imposed by the amendment ia a relatively new area and not much scholarly work has yet been published. Falls from height are one of the most common causes of work related accidents … and they usually result in fatal or serious injury (Cattledge et al. 1996). Getting on and off a vehicle to carry out loading/unloading operations and working at height on the vehicle are often viewed as incidental to the main job.  Because of this, the risks involved may not be properly considered by both workers and their managers. The economic and human cost of the falls from vehicles that we know about was over £36 million in 2004/05 (HSE 2007/WPT-05). “Work at height” is defined as work in any place where a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. All falls need to be prevented. Specific and additional precautions need to be taken with regard to work at the back of vehicles in addition to those imposed by the general guidelines applicable to working at the back of vehicles. These may include the use of such equipment and precautions that are not usually mentioned in considerations of work at height safety. For example: loading ramps and bridges, Dock levellers (mechanical or hydraulic), Dock Seals, Dock Shelters and very importantly Vehicle restraints. The large variety of the vehicles used which may include an array ranging from ordinary flatbed trucks, articulated vehicles, road tankers, dumpers and a host of specialised vehicles such as refrigerated transport for perishables etc. All these require different safety measures too numerous to enumerate here. Different machines like Fork-Lift trucks may also be employed in the process. Within the USA alone, more than 100 deaths were caused in forklift truck related accidents in 2006 (Kaletta 2008). Time pressure is a severe burden on workers. Fatigue reduces their reactions and reflexes and can initiate a fall. This fatigue may be intensified by the mental and physical stress produced by the continuous concern about risk prevention and safe behaviour (Kines, 2002).Workers involved in the loading and unloading of transport vehicles and sheeting of truck beds for bulk cargo handling often need to work in a variety of different physical positions and postures. The application of ergonomic methodology and principles has led to great improvement in industrial safety. Difficult working positions lead to lowering of safety concerns as the worker attempts to finish the job quickly to relieve the difficult working situation. In addition, the work takes longer working times over the task and leads to fatigue. Holt (2001; page 159) mentioned that ‘‘fall prevention is far more effective than fall protection, which often involves personal protective equipment. Reliance on people to make the ‘right’ decision about wearing personal protective equipment has been shown by events to be unsatisfactory – they forget, decide not wear it in view of the expected short exposure time, or do not wear or use it correctly. The first stage in fall prevention is during the design process, which influences the construction method.’’ This has stimulated a search for new methods and approaches, and a growing interest in social psychological factors, particularly safety attitudes and climate. Donald and Canter (1993) stated that organizational climate is a useful related concept in considering the organizational factors associated with risk and accidents. Climate may also refer to a particular area of organizational functioning, one of which is safety. Job strains are also believed to be related to employee safety (Barrar & Cooper, 1992). For instance, stress has been suspected to play a role in industrial accidents (Goldberger & Brezniz, 1982). The effects of job dissatisfaction on work injuries have also been examined. Studies have reported a positive relation between job dissatisfaction and work-related accidents and injuries (Zwerling et al, 1996). Another important factor is the age of the worker. It has been found that age is negatively related to work injuries (Frone, 1998). “Younger drivers tend to find access to and egress from the load area much easier, but repeatedly jumping from the load area can result in reduced mobility in the longer term. Many drivers have personal experience of falling from vehicles, and through this process they learn to take more care “(Scott et al 2006).The older workers encounter more difficulties because of the physical stress required and at the same time their physical capacity is lower, they also find it difficult to change ingrained habits and therefore resistant to new rules and instructions. They tend to believe that with their long experience they are immune to risk, especially if they have never suffered an accident before, however, they are also risk averse. Younger workers on the other hand readily understand and are willing to follow safety instructions but lack of experience and judgement and a tendency to underestimate risks and overestimate their capacities makes them prone to risk taking that can lead to accidents. The younger (15-30 years old) worker and the older worker (45-60 years old) present a lower risk of accidents, while the workers in the age group 30-45 are at the highest risk (Batra and Loannides, 2002). A great sum of money is lost through loss of wages, workers’ compensation, medical benefits and lost working days. It is estimated that the lost working time because of injuries is about five times greater than the working time lost because of strikes (Jewell, 1998).As Donald (1994) stated, many organizations are finding that their accident rates level off after periods of continuing improvement and that expending further effort in the traditional human factors area results in little further gain. This has stimulated a search for new methods and approaches, and a growing interest in social psychological factors, particularly safety attitudes and climate. Donald and Canter (1994) stated that organizational climate is a useful related concept in considering the organizational factors associated with risk and accidents. Climate may also refer to a particular area of organizational functioning, one of which is safety. A safety-climate instrument was developed by Zohar (1980) including seven dimensions (e.g. degree of management commitment to safety, effects of safe job performance on promotion, relative effectiveness of enforcement versus guidance in promoting safety). In addition, more recently greater attention has been directed to cognitive error, particularly mental slips and lapses. The development of safety audit systems appears to have paralleled the stages improvements in general safety practices have moved through. Improvements in safety first began as a consequence of changes to the physical environment and working conditions of employees (Donald, 1994). These are known as ‘human factors’ which particular attention has been paid to the physical and cognitive characteristics and limitations of operators, this being mainly the province of social science rather than engineering practices. In a detailed analysis of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences (Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 3163) RIDDOR data for the period 2000-2005 relating to falls from vehicles, an HSE team under the leadership of Dr. Marianne Loo-Morrey found that (Loo-Morrey 2007): 1. More than three fourths of the accidents were attributable to failure of systems of work with poor assessment of risk being the most common shortcoming. 2. Most accidents involved large goods vehicles and fork-lift trucks and within this 40% of the accidents happened when a person was standing on the forks (See also HSE Information sheet WPT01). 3. A large proportion of the accidents happened at the time of loading or unloading operations. The next significant operation was cleaning and maintenance activities. 4. Not surprisingly mechanical faults were not a major cause of the falls but it was “slips and trips” that resulted from faulty use of materials, poor housekeeping (spillages of oil/ grease), lack of provision of trip boards, working in inclement weather (ice formation on working areas) etc. These findings are supported in the work of Scott et al (2006) who analysed the reasons for slip and trip hazard on steps and floors to falls from vehicles and professional drivers. The research found that the materials used for the load areas of vehicles whether in rigid, curtain-sided or flatbed vehicles generally provide low slip potential with the exception of “the threshold which is usually a part of the steel structure of the vehicle” which is usually painted or polished steel and presents a high slip potential. This work also points to the need to provide handholds because in their absence the load itself may be used as a handhold increasing risk of fall, accidents were recorded also when the banding on the load snapped due to its use as a handhold.. Riley (2004) carried out a separate study of tank containers and found that climbing on and off the tanks is a routine practice and this is usually done without fall protection. This is a high risk area and proper gantries and platforms need to be provided. The HSE publication (indg163) recommends the following measures to control the number of cases of accidents related to working on vehicles: Quote Site based to enable different hauliers (sic) to deliver with different vehicles Un-restricted loading: crane (above), forklift (side and rear) and using on-vehicle cranes and hoists Enable the operative free movement and reliable fall arrest at all points on vehicle trailer Provide fall arrest without reliance on vehicle or load type Increased flexibility and improved performance compared to other products Unquote References Barrar, P. and Cooper C. L. (1992) (Eds.): Managing Organizations in Strategic Responses. Routledge Batra, P.E. and Loannides, M.G. (2002): Assessment of electric accidents in power industry. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing Journal, 12(2), 151 Cattledge, G.H., Hendricks, S. and Stanevich, R. (1996): Fatal occupational falls in the US construction industry, 1980-1989. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28(5), 647 Donald, I. (1994): Measuring psychological factors in safety. The Safety and Health Practitioner, March, 26-29. Donald, I., & Canter, D. (1993): Attitudes to safety: Psychological factors and the accident plateau. Health and Safety Information Bulletin 215, November, 5-8 Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (4), 565-576. Goldberger, L. and Brezniz, S. (Eds.) (1982): Handbook of Stress. New York: The Free Press. HSE Publication WPT 05: Managing work to avoid falls from vehicles, accessed online on May 6, 2007 from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/fallsfromvehicles/wpt05.pdf HSE Publication WPT 06: Delivering safely: Co-operating to prevent workplace vehicle accidents, accessed online on May 5, 2008 from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/fallsfromvehicles/wpt06.pdf HSE Information sheet WPT01 (extract) accessed online on May 5, 2008 from: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf Holt, A. J. (2001): Principles of construction safety, Blackwell Science, Malden, Mass. Jewell, L. N. (1998) (3rd Ed.): Contemporary Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, ITP An International Thomson Publishing Company. Kaletta, J.P. (2008): Lift Truck Safety: A systematic approach based on OSHA 1910.178, Professional Safety, March, pp 30-37 Kines, P. (2002): Construction Workers’ falls through roofs: fatal versus serious injuries, Journal of Safety Research, 33, 195. Loo-Morrey M. Dr. (2007): Analysis of RIDDOR Data 2000 to 2005 – Falls from Vehicles, HSL/2007/39. Accessed online on May 5, 2008 from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2007/hsl0739.pdf Riley, D (2005): Safety of workers when accessing the top of tank containers HSL/2005/04, accessed online on May 5, 2008 from: www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0504.pdf Scott, A., Miller, M. and Hallas, K. (2006): The underlying causes of falls from vehicles associated with slip and trip hazards on steps and floors. Accessed online on May 5, 2008 from: www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr437.pdf Wearing, S., Peebles, L., Jefferies, D., Lee, K. and Anjorin, E. (2007): First evaluation of the impact of the work at height regulations First evaluation of the removal of the two metre rule, HSE Books, HMSO. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96-102. Zwerling, C., Sprince, N. L., Wallace, R. B., Davis, C. S., Whiten, P. S., and Heeringa, S. G. (1996). Risk factors for occupational injuries among older workers: An analysis of the health and retirement study. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1306-1309. Read More