Risk assesments

The first question will be "Are those all the potential hazards?". The second will be "are these the apppropriate measures to reduce or mitigate the risks of the hazards arising?". When you have answered both of those questions honestly in the fully affirmative you will have made your best endeavour.

In the eyes of the law if you can 'demonstrate' that you have done all that is 'reasonable practicable' to ensure peoples safety, then you have done your job properly.

If you have nothing written down you cannot later prove that you had taken reasonable steps, any accident would then leave you open to possible prosecution.

Regards

Andy

Would it be possible for you to post a potted version for those who like me have never even seen a risk assesment, let alone had to write one?

nickh=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 2.2.0.8

Rather than post a copy of a format for a risk assessment that you will not understand without a much fuller explanation of the context it may be better if we just say what a risk assessment is.

It starts by identifying a hazard (let's consider a running show engine display), then describing what measure you will put in place to prevent death, injury or property damage due to a failure of your displayed engine.

eg:-

Your engine has an open fly-wheel. You consider that a potential risk would be a member of the public getting a hand caught up with the flywheel in motion. You decide that you should keep the public at a safe distance from the engine while it is running. So, you erect a fence around the display and prevent anyone else other than yourself into the area during engine running times.

If the measures have to be assessed by another person (like the Fire Brigade being happy about the extinguishers you have on your stand to quell in-advertant fires) then this additional assessment needs to be recorded also.

No matter how you write it down you should at least have a clear view of the hazards and the risk reduction measures at a glance. For this reason, tabular summaries are often produced.

So basically it is considering just how high the insurance premium can be raised?

Just curious to see what this much demonised document actually consists of - I'd be hard pressed to think of any *reasonable* hazards beyond the obvious one you mention above, though perhaps one should consider the possibility of pieces becoming detached from an engine having read that Amanco resto story with its fabricated con rod! But just how far into the ridiculous does one have to go - e.g. used oil is a carcinogen, so what about Petter Spots which might land on J. Public?

There are many ways to carry out risk assesments. The most basic are dynamic ones which mean you look before crossing the road. The more complicated are written down, frequently as a code of practice or a set of instructions. To do a risk assesment: Step one, list the hazards. These are things likely to cause injury or worse. Step two, what are the consequencies (minor to death). Step three, how likely is it to happen (hardly ever to quite likely). It helps to put numerical values to steps 2 & 3 because you now muliply them together. The result is the risk. Very low risks can be ignored. Very high risks must be reduced. Job done.

Example Engine section. Hazard - hot exhausts Consequence - burns, score 3 out of 5. Chance of it happening, very likely, score 4 of 5. Risk = 3x4 = 12

Risks 0 - 2 can be ignored. 3 - 5 can be allowed with care. 6 - 9 must be reduced if possible. 10 - 15 must be reduced. 15+ are not allowed. (You set these values).

12 must be reduced. The engines are put behind barriers and are continually supervised and the exercise repeated. Hazard - hot exhausts Consequence - burns, score 3 out of 5. Chance of it happening, very likely, score 1 of 5. Risk = 3x1 = 3

This risk is acceptable with care.

The job takes little time but must be written down to prove that the job has been done. Most RA's can be tabulated making the exercise even easier. Simple really. We only have to consider risks that are reasonably forseable so earthquakes, stampeding elephants and broadsword wielding Vikings running amok (just joking Kim) can be ignored.

On a personal level, a couple of years back, I was about to cut some long grass on a bank using a large Flymo. My wife offered to do it but I pointed out that if the operator slipped their toes would shoot straight under the mower so the job required steel toe caps. A short time later, just that happened to me. I needed 12 stiches where one blade cut through the sole of my shoe before the second blade hit the steel cap and stalled the engine with a bang. Without my protective measures, I probably wouldn't have my foot. As it was, I was back to normal in a week. That was at home so no written record was kept but I was VERY glad of my training in risk assesments.

John

Its obvious that some of you know as much as I, I will sometime this put up a form for you all to look at. All I will say though it is coming and will be carte blanche over the whole of rallying soon so get used to doing it.

Martin P

As you might imagine, our group of vicious (can't spell marauding) Vikings, sensational Saxons and abnormal Normans need RA at each event. I've prepared a single A4 sheet which seems to satisfy all but English Heritage who have their own, running to many many pages.

Encounters with Living History are roped off & a double roped arena keeps the public away from the weapon bearing performers.

The barriers can have their own problems, though, as we have seen at Lister-Tyndale. If they are so ill-liked as to keep the "entertainers" away, they are surely self defeating & there was a lot of empty space in the engine pens there this year .........

Risk Assessment is here to stay - suck it up & move on as the Americans have it. What is valuable is reading each other's RA's as we all think in slightly different ways & assess risks differently. Knowledge is power ;o))

Regards,

Kim Siddorn

Diplomacy done, plates spun, fires fought, maidens eaten - well, three out of four ain't bad

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

Including no doubt the very real risk that the sight of hairy men wielding swords could bring on an attack of the vapours among more sensitive sections of the audience ;-) Seriously though, and returning to engines, I'm surprised some group such as NVTEC has not produced a standard form.

"Kim Siddorn" wrote (snip):-

I don't find the cattle pens too bad from the 'other side' - less unsightly for instance than that orange plastic mesh which some rallies use, and they do give something to lean on whilst nattering ;-) But if they deter exhibitors they will ultimately of course destroy the show.

--

Nick H

Nick, from a visitors point of view the Lister-Tyndale "cattle pens" were Ok for leaning on but totally deterred me from taking any photos.

That is starting to become a serious problem now, too many nice engines are spoilt so much from the photographer's point by background clutter and foreground ropes.

Repositioning can help, but I have to say that engine photos are less interesting now that you have so many obstacles to getting a clear picture.

The Americans haven't gone this bad yet, and one of the attractions of Portland is that most if not all engines are completely open and accessible, and they have no problems at all.

Peter

-- Peter A Forbes Prepair Ltd, Luton, UK snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk

I understand that it is to do with the difference in law between the two countries. In the UK, a person cannot sign away their rights. However, a standard printed waiver has legal competence in the USA & there one CAN accept liability for ones actions if properly informed.

Just my understanding of this matter you understand and only my opinion.

Regards,

Kim Siddorn