Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

The Dangers of Ladders

The Dangers of Ladders
The Health and Safety Gestapo are at it again, pass the sick bag!

This time they have decreed that anyone on Nanny's payroll who intends to mount (can I say mount?) a ladder, needs approved ladder training.

Fair enough I suppose, if we are talking high ladders. However, the Gestapo have decreed that you need training even when the ladder is a mere 3 feet (or is it foot?) off the ground.

Failure to comply with this edict results in a fine of £5K.

There is a small irony here though, what sort of ladder only goes up 3 feet? The ladder used to install roadside speed indicators....

Lancashire County Council made an attempt to improve road safety, by installing electronic speed indicators which shame drivers into slowing down.

Thirty of the devices lie waiting to be put up on their roadside poles, but the council has found that it does not have enough staff qualified to go up ladders to install them.

Health and Safety Executive’s Working at Height Regulations 2005 (amended 2007) have been used by Nanny to stop Nanny putting up more speed indicators. Last year about 350 road deaths were ascribed to speeding. In the same period 14 people died after falling off ladders.

Lancashire used to have three roadside speed indicators, which were erected (can I say erected?) and maintained by the police. Policemen are qualified to go up ladders, but they are not qualified to teach other people how to do so. Now the police have decided that they are too busy to look after them.

Hah!

Nanny has hoisted herself on her own petard!

10 comments:

  1. It's a shame really... The TRL has found that those speed indicators are something like 4 times better at reducing traffic speed than "safety" cameras!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Grant1:28 PM

    Soooo, LanCA$Hire employs how many people for maintenance work they cannot undertake because they are not trained to use a ladder? (Or in this case small steps I presume.

    And, just how long does it take to train someone to use a ladder?

    It's a pity that the rate payers sem not to require any training in how to pay the rates. No doubt if that was a requirement LanCA$Hire would suddenly discover an army of fully qualified trainers for that task.


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh no!!!! Nanny I am so sorry, I've been putting my 'elf & safety at risk as I use a "hop up" to reach the things in the higher sections of my kitchen cupboards....please forgive me Nanny...where can I get the training required to use my little steps?
    Do i need to get my grandchildren trained to use the slides at our local council's park as the steps to the slide are about Eight feet tall and they do look like ladders?

    ReplyDelete
  4. These health and safety laws that we have are idiotic. Why can't people just use common sense?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Connell9:54 PM

    Maybe if you people actually took time to read the regulations and guidance you stop embarassing yourselfs with the rubbish you spout.
    The law does not ban ladders and the requirement to provide training is nothing new - its a requirement under the Health and safety at Work act etc 1974. Last year 241 people died simply doing there job, the most common cause was falling at height. I am sure the famlies of the deceased will appreciate your views on safety.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Connell said...

    "The law does not ban ladders and the requirement to provide training is nothing new - its a requirement under the Health and safety at Work act etc 1974."

    So are you suggesting that Lancashire have been underfunding training in their work force since 1974?


    Connell said...
    "Last year 241 people died simply doing there job, the most common cause was falling at height."

    Unless you are in, say, the Army when despite much training (so I believe) you can be subject to greater risks for less compo potential.

    Or we could discuss lying in bed, especially in hospital, and having a life ending interaction with some unpleasant bugs.

    Yes it's bad news, yes it makes sense to make people aware of the potential problems and certainly they should be encouraged to think before they act in their own interests BUT life is not risk free and, in the case of the Lancashire signs work, the risk does not sound too great - at least no so great that the lack of training should cause so much apparent difficulty to achieve a resolution.

    So we worry about people performing work in slightly risky situations that have been around and accepted as normal life for centuries yet we allow, perhaps encourage, them to undertake dangerous sports in their leisure time, with probably just as many fatalities in the course of a year.

    How does that work?

    Are we really scared of Risk or not - is there something else in play here?


    Grant




    I am sure the famlies of the deceased will appreciate your views on safety.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Connell:

    I believe you are missing the point of the blog somewhat!
    No one would argue that the use of ladders does not have risks attached, however the key phrase you used was "working at height."
    Three feet seems to have very little risk attached. The point of the blog is to show how crazy the nanny state has become in interfering in our daily lives.
    Recently the House of Commons discussed introducing legislation to limit how hot we can have our bath water, some people are scalded by bathwater. I looked up the figures and realised that more people are scalded by hot water from kettles and saucepans, so what next? Do we ban cooking or tea making?

    It seems to me you are getting a little worked up about 'elf & safety issues, may I suggest, for your own 'elf and safety, you stop reading the blog if it winds you up so much as I would hate for the stress induced by it, to cause you to have a heart attack or stroke.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe I am in breach of the 'elf and safety laws by not having a warning on this site?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ken:

    Yes perhaps you are putting us at risk with your site.
    Perhaps you should put a warning along the line of " Reading of this site may induce transient ischaemic attacks or myocardial infarction in persons that are politically correct in their views or have no sense of humour"

    I however, have completed the required risk assessment and as I am not PC in any way, I believe the risk is minimal and I therefore conclude that I should continue to read the content of this excellent site.
    I shall review my decision in twelve months....unless I fall off my step ladder/hop up in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  10. archroy12:02 PM

    Maybe Connell works in Elf'n'safety him/herself? Maybe he/she is a Ladder Training Instructor looking for new business?

    ReplyDelete