Work place safety issue

[Placebo]

I have a query about the proposed changes for 2005 and beyond. The changes to limit costs seem generally a good idea for the future longevity of the sport.

The bit I don't get is the decreased aero and possible tyre changes. I understand the explanation given - ie. that it will increase the likelihood of minor errors and therefore increase passing opportunities. Barbagello put forward an argument for increasing grip, with the new surface offering encouragement and confidence to have a go under brakes and producing some very entertaining racing.

After watching V8 superstars, I've been thinking about what was said about how light the V8s can get at speed - especially if there was decreased downforce - and can be worsened with contact/blown tire/etc. I'm fully aware that motor racing is dangerous by nature - that's why it's so great. But I am unaware of any employer/workplace, in these times of litigation and occupational health and safety, that would get away with making changes that could potentially increase the risk to it's employees/constituents.

No-one wants to see drivers injured - but would AVESCO/TEGA/team bosses be a bit nervous if an incident coming down conrod straight resulted in court action based on a strong argument that effective aero may have saved a life? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Morris 1100]

But what would happen if a death resulted from the failure of a "control" wing?

[Beejay17]

As far as I am aware, most state OH&S authorities don't get involved in motorsport for a very good reason: there is already legislation in place to look after spectator and competitor safety. I think in NSW it used to be the Speedway Act or something similar.

Although it could be made to fit if people like the state coroners insisted, the workplace legislation wasn't meant to cover motorsport. If it was, you start to have things like solo lap sprints and no spectators allowed!!

If there was a death from a broken wing etc, it would be investigated by the state coroner who would make recommendations as in the Todd Wilkes (sp?) case at Eastern Creek.

As it is, Duty of Care by those with responsibilities would still be a common approach, with everybody trying their best to prevent an injury. (*All this is said without any legal qualification and I stand to be corrected by someone who knows better . Where is David Greenhalgh when you need him? )

[Chronicle]

Posted by beejay17

As far as I am aware, most state OH&S authorities don't get involved in motorsport for a very good reason: there is already legislation in place to look after spectator and competitor safety. I think in NSW it used to be the Speedway Act or something similar.

Sorry BJ, that is not quite correct, OH&S Authorities are very interested in ALL workplaces, and a racetrack is a workplace. OH&S Authorities will admit that they don't have the expertiese in this area, but believe me they could get interested very fast. I am not sure about NSW. but certainly in Victoria racing and racetracks do NOT have seperate legislation, the OH&S Act applies. I would be very surprised if it is any different in NSW. Please remember CAMS are NOT a legislated authority, and as such have no "legal" authority for OH&S.

Although it could be made to fit if people like the state coroners insisted, the workplace legislation wasn't meant to cover motorsport. If it was, you start to have things like solo lap sprints and no spectators allowed!!

Some State Coroners are already interested, there are a couple on the newly formed group that is looking into an Australian Standard for Motorsport (as are Workcover), this group are looking to modify the current Australian Standard for Risk Managment to suit all forms of motorsport in Australia. (There is a pretty big thread already on this topic somewhere back a few apges) Please also remember Coroners can only make recommendations, they cannot lay charges, the can recommend to the Police, etc, that charges be laid, that is all.

If there was a death from a broken wing etc, it would be investigated by the state coroner who would make recommendations as in the Todd Wilkes (sp?) case at Eastern Creek.

Accurate, but the investigation would be by the Police, and most likely the OH&S Authority, as it is a workplace death, the same as if a truck driver is killed on the highway.

As it is, Duty of Care by those with responsibilities would still be a common approach, with everybody trying their best to prevent an injury. (*All this is said without any legal qualification and I stand to be corrected by someone who knows better . Where is David Greenhalgh when you need him?)

Tony Cochrane would have everyone believe that V8 Supercars are exempt from OH&S Legislation, but this is not true. Walk around the back of the pits at a V8 race and look for breaches of the OH&S Act(s), it is prety easy to find them, and don't just look for PPE (Personal Protective Equipment, gloves, eye protection, etc.) These are the bottom of the list when is comes to proper Risk Management. Maybe acotrel could shed some more light on this.

[DAVID PATERSON]

The Speedways Act still applies in NSW and there is no real equivalent in any other state. I'm not sure that you could call a racetyrack a wrokplace, when the vast majorirty of competitors are amateurs and nearly all officials are volunteers.

[Onlooker]

You can't be half pregnant now can you.So if the OH&S bill is applied to motorsport you may as well shut it down.
An "all nighter" would have to be firstly broken up into little segments with a break in between,the crew members would have to have the manadory 8 hour break at the end of it.Loads in trucks would have to be loaded in accordance with transport legislation.All trucks would carry the appropriate "Hazardous Material" listings for the fuel,oil,brakecleen etc that is carried on them and would not use such things as the tunnels in Melbourne.The truck drivers would start entries in logg books at the time they start work,not when they pull out the gate.I am sure some sort of a gaurd would be erected around the car during pit stops.If a mobile phone is to dangerous to have in a petrol station,then why are radios OK attached to the refueler.People working with fibreglass and carbon fibre resin would not be doing it out the back of the garage watched by parents and childre,none wearing masks.Large tool box's would not be pushed ,pulled or towed through crowds of people.Fuel wouldn't be drianed from cars with an excit to atmosphere.Drivers would not be able to drive in certain heat conditions,objects that could "potentualy "fly off into the crowd would need more than race tape and cable ties to adhere it to the car post incident.Drivers would have to pass strinngent driving tests before gaining a licence.Marshals would have to be shielded from the elements of the day.Health and Safety would have to go over every food outlet from top to bottom.Public tiolets would have to be clean and of a hygenic nature.Baby changing facilitys would have to be in each tiolet block,along with applicable disabled access to all areas.
You could even deal with the passive smoking issues of the pipes of exhurst that get pumped out of the garage

What a nightmare.Lets just keep it as it is eh,and if the drivers don't like it .......step down.

[Placebo]

Hey guys - getting way too heavy.
This wasn't meant to be an attempt to apply all aspects of OH&S to every inch of motorsport.
The small point I was trying to make (apparently not too successfully) is this:
Could the proposed aero/tyres/brake changes make the cars LESS safe than they currently are?
If so, would it not be unusual for a governing/controlling body to change regulations that did so in the current climate?

I would consider a driver being paid to drive as an employee and whoever pays him to be his employer. This carries a duty of care.
If you are a paying driver - should you not be entitled to the safest possible equipment for your money.

As for the possibility of an accident due to a faulty wing - that's a little different to actually changing the regulations when it comes to duty of care. Although, Frank Williams may beg to differ after Senna's accident.

Bugger - now I'm taking this thread seriousl!

[johnh875]

Very true Onlooker, and some of those issues you raise would be very difficult to address, however I don't believe sticking the head in the sand is a sustainable answer. Better to have a proactive approach, rather than deal with regulations imposed without any input in them.

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally posted by Onlooker
Loads in trucks would have to be loaded in accordance with transport legislation.All trucks would carry the appropriate "Hazardous Material" listings for the fuel,oil,brakecleen etc that is carried on them.The truck drivers would start entries in log books at the time they start work,not when they pull out the gate. Drivers would have to pass stringent driving tests before gaining a licence.

These regulations already apply.

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally posted by Onlooker
Marshals would have to be shielded from the elements of the day. Health and Safety would have to go over every food outlet from top to bottom. Public toilets would have to be clean and of a hygenic nature.

If this isn't happening already, it should be!

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally posted by Onlooker
If a mobile phone is to dangerous to have in a petrol station,then why are radios OK attached to the refueller?

A good mate of mine is a combustion engineer and he says that it's a bit of a furphy about mobile phones at petrol bowsers. He says the fire risk is minimal and quoted a bunch of scientific data about radiation, flame speed and flashpoints. The problem is that the mobile phone emissions can muck about with the fuel measuring equipment in the bowsers causing to you to be undercharged.

[Bigguy]

Yeah, I understand there is NOT ONE SINGLE INCIDENT in the world where a mobile phone has been plamed for a bowser fire. I certainly suspect that the undercharging risk is the issue, and I will make sure I use my phone every time I fill up from now on!

[Wheels]

I would think that if there was any change to any aero design that had to be implemented, then the teams would have a long hard look at it and see if it makes the cars aero package super critical, critical, sub-critical or less (theory of flight was a while ago, so apologies for any incorrect terminology). Duty of care not only applies to employers towards employees, it also applies to employees about themselves AND organizations that use volunteers.
And as an aside, anybody know who follows some of the toughest OH&S compliance rules in the country, but can be "temporarily exempted." Probably said too much and will now made to work OT without pay (OH BUGGER, that happens now!!).

[Chronicle]

Originally posted by DAVID PATERSON
... I'm not sure that you could call a racetyrack a wrokplace, when the vast majorirty of competitors are amateurs and nearly all officials are volunteers.

Sorry David, you are wrong, race tracks are certainly workplaces, the Act(s) do not differentiate between paid employment and volunteer employment.

As for drivers being amateur, that is totally irrelevant, they are vistors to a workplace and as such are covered under the OH&S Act(s), as are contractors, such as flaggies, racesafe, etc. who are paid as a team, not as individuals.

[Chronicle]

Originally posted by Onlooker
You can't be half pregnant now can you.So if the OH&S bill is applied to motorsport you may as well shut it down.
An "all nighter" would have to be firstly broken up into little segments with a break in between,the crew members would have to have the manadory 8 hour break at the end of it.

Not quite accurate there Onlooker, the stuff you are talking about is the Transport Act(s), and some workplace requirements.

Loads in trucks would have to be loaded in accordance with transport legislation.All trucks would carry the appropriate "Hazardous Material" listings for the fuel,oil,brakecleen etc that is carried on them and would not use such things as the tunnels in Melbourne.

Not quite right there either, Dangerous goods trucks have to be signed after certain quantaties are carried, now I am not certain on this, but anything over 1000 kg or litres (in a single container) require the truck to be placarded rear and to the sides with Emergency Information Panels, and the relevant Dangeous Goods Class label on the front. These trucks cannot travel through tunnels. Quantities less than the magical 1000 kg/ltr have different requirements, and again I am not sure of the labeling requirements for less than 1000 kg/ltr, but these quantaties are considered packaging by the relevant authorities, this information is readily available in the current Dangerous Goods Code.

The truck drivers would start entries in logg books at the time they start work,not when they pull out the gate.

Spot on there, Onlloker, but that law applies to all truck drivers regardless of freight.

I am sure some sort of a gaurd would be erected around the car during pit stops.

Not accurate Onlloker, however there should be gaurding/fall protection on the rear of trucks when they are loading/unloading anything above 2 metres, this is now a legislative requirement in Victoria as of the end of May this year.

If a mobile phone is to dangerous to have in a petrol station,then why are radios OK attached to the refueler.

Excellent point, but have you found out if the radios are approved to be used around Dangerous Goods, this is an expensive process, but achieveable, maybe you have just raised a great point for the OH&S Inspectors across Australia - well done.

People working with fibreglass and carbon fibre resin would not be doing it out the back of the garage watched by parents and childre,none wearing masks.

As per my statement above about the OH&S Inspectors.

Large tool box's would not be pushed ,pulled or towed through crowds of people.

Pulling, pushing is OK providing an appropriate Risk Assessment is done first, and all risks identified and appropriate measures taken to ensure no injury is going to occur to any worker.

Fuel wouldn't be drianed from cars with an excit to atmosphere.

This is OK providing an appropriate Risk Assessment is done first, and all risks identified and appropriate measures taken to ensure no injury is going to occur to any worker.

Drivers would not be able to drive in certain heat conditions.

This is OK providing an appropriate Risk Assessment is done first, and all risks identified and appropriate measures taken to ensure no injury is going to occur to any worker.

objects that could "potentualy "fly off into the crowd would need more than race tape and cable ties to adhere it to the car post incident.

Isn't this done already? and again if any injury is to occur as a result of items coming off cars, then the potential is there for an investigation by a regualtory body.

Drivers would have to pass strinngent driving tests before gaining a licence..

They currently have to undergo an assessment by CAMS.

Marshals would have to be shielded from the elements of the day.

That is already being investigated and implemented as some tracks.

Health and Safety would have to go over every food outlet from top to bottom.

This already applies, but has nothing to do with OH&S, it is a Food Safety requirement.

Public tiolets would have to be clean and of a hygenic nature.Baby changing facilitys would have to be in each tiolet block,along with applicable disabled access to all areas.

There is a requirement under the OH&S Act to provide appropriate facilities for workers, visitor and contractors on a worksite.

You could even deal with the passive smoking issues of the pipes of exhurst that get pumped out of the garage.

Passive smoking laws apply only to cigarette smoke, bad point Onlooker.

What a nightmare.Lets just keep it as it is eh,and if the drivers don't like it .......step down.

Don't think race tracks are going to be exempt from OH&S Law, coz they are already being caught up with.

[Beejay17]

Originally posted by Chronicle
Posted by beejay17
Sorry BJ, that is not quite correct, OH&S Authorities are very interested in ALL workplaces, and a racetrack is a workplace. OH&S Authorities will admit that they don't have the expertiese in this area, but believe me they could get interested very fast. I am not sure about NSW. but certainly in Victoria racing and racetracks do NOT have seperate legislation, the OH&S Act applies. I would be very surprised if it is any different in NSW. Please remember CAMS are NOT a legislated authority, and as such have no "legal" authority for OH&S.

Chronicle:

Not from where I sit. The OH&S Authority I'm thinking of is snowed under with many issues, a lot of which have other bodies to take care of the risks. Sure not all of them are law enforcers, but their object is to control the risks. A test for NSW would be to ask: "Did WorkCover NSW get involved in the Todd Wilkes case?" - "Did they investigate when a Cat Racing team member was injured by gear pulled down by the K-Mart Commodore"?

In my experience the OH&S Authority is only intervening when necessary. In the trucking example, what is the point of an OH&S Authority intervening where the Roads Authority regulates for trucking road safety?

Regarding your point about volunteers, if there is no contract of employment, it is not a place of work. But most definitely it is a place of work for many people at the track: drivers, crews, vendors, media and becomes a place of work anyway. Volunteers and spectators become 'non-employees' at a place of work under OH&S legislation.

But definitely there are some safety risks occuring at circuits. I saw one team owner standing by while his employees tried to tow a race semi out of a bog with a thin snatch-em strap attached to a Nissan Patrol. Spectators that had gathered around were cringing while they watched the inevitable happen and something broke. Luckily, it smashed into the back of the Patrol.

[Wheels]

Chronicle, If you have a spare couple of hours next week, I've got another monthly OH&S report due on yet another building. You're speaking my language, and speaking the truth. To Beejay17, you raise some very good points. Anything that could cause harm to anybody should be investigated. Fully and impartially. But there is a difference between OH&S and WorkCover. OH&S is an act of parliament. Call it a law if you will. Companies/Organizations are bound to follow this. So are you if you are employed. Or if you are a volunteer. Paid or not. It all comes down to Duty of Care and how you interpret it. DoC is not just there for the employers, it's there for everyone.
In my "structured" workplace, we have a saying,.......where is the nearest safety officer? The young one's aren't quiet sure but anyone who has been around knows it's the nearest person.
One of the best threads I've followed. Lot's of people knowing what they're on about. And for something that concerns us all.

[Wheels]

Chronicle, If you have a spare couple of hours next week, I've got another monthly OH&S report due on yet another building. You're speaking my language, and speaking the truth. To Beejay17, you raise some very good points. Anything that could cause harm to anybody should be investigated. Fully and impartially. But there is a difference between OH&S and WorkCover. OH&S is an act of parliament. Call it a law if you will. Companies/Organizations are bound to follow this. So are you if you are employed. Or if you are a volunteer. Paid or not. It all comes down to Duty of Care and how you interpret it. DoC is not just there for the employers, it's there for everyone.
In my "structured" workplace, we have a saying,.......where is the nearest safety officer? The young one's aren't quiet sure but anyone who has been around knows it's the nearest person.
One of the best threads I've followed. Lot's of people knowing what they're on about. And for something that concerns us all.

And Beejay, I'm originally a Balgownie boy, the 'Gong is great place.

[Wheels]

Apologies for the double post. The Minister for Fun, Finance, Food & Forn.......wife, jumped on and inadvertently posted without me finishing. It was only the last line but please accept my apologies.

(Yes I did try to post edit the post and edit it, but I wasn't allowed to by the site). Numpty alert.....

[Chronicle]

Originally posted by Beejay17
Chronicle:

Not from where I sit. The OH&S Authority I'm thinking of is snowed under with many issues, a lot of which have other bodies to take care of the risks. Sure not all of them are law enforcers, but their object is to control the risks. A test for NSW would be to ask: "Did WorkCover NSW get involved in the Todd Wilkes case?" - "Did they investigate when a Cat Racing team member was injured by gear pulled down by the K-Mart Commodore"?

Are you absolutely sure they didn't?

In my experience the OH&S Authority is only intervening when necessary. In the trucking example, what is the point of an OH&S Authority intervening where the Roads Authority regulates for trucking road safety?

Didn't I say that?

Regarding your point about volunteers, if there is no contract of employment, it is not a place of work. But most definitely it is a place of work for many people at the track: drivers, crews, vendors, media and becomes a place of work anyway. Volunteers and spectators become 'non-employees' at a place of work under OH&S legislation.

You are absolutely wrong on this, and thanks to the brother Wheels from WA for supporting me on this one. Volunteers are most certainly covered by the relevant OH&S Acts. Just take a second to think about all the Volunteer Fire Fighters and SES People across you State, what in the hell is covering them. Believe me, I am talking with lots off experience on this one, and I will debate it to the cows come home.

But definitely there are some safety risks occuring at circuits. I saw one team owner standing by while his employees tried to tow a race semi out of a bog with a thin snatch-em strap attached to a Nissan Patrol. Spectators that had gathered around were cringing while they watched the inevitable happen and something broke. Luckily, it smashed into the back of the Patrol.

Circuit owners and Promoters are faced with endless breaches of the law on the sites everyday, it is a constant irritant for them as the bottom line is "Ultimately they (the Circuit Owners) are responsible, particularly on OH&S Issues on their racetracks."

[Chronicle]

For everyones benifit, this is a copy of parts the NSW OH&S Act, all other States are almost identical.

8 Duties of employers
(1) Employees
An employer must ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all the employees of the employer.
That duty extends (without limitation) to the following:
(a) ensuring that any premises controlled by the employer where the employees work (and the means of access to or exit from the premises) are safe and without risks to health,
(b) ensuring that any plant or substance provided for use by the employees at work is safe and without risks to health when properly used,
(c) ensuring that systems of work and the working environment of the employees are safe and without risks to health,
(d) providing such information, instruction, training and
supervision as may be necessary to ensure the employees’
health and safety at work,
(e) providing adequate facilities for the welfare of the employees at work.

(2) Others at workplace
An employer must ensure that people (other than the employees of the employer) are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the employer’s undertaking while they are at the employer’s place of work.

This last bit is about volunteers on the worksite, and to make it simple, every race track has employed people, eg Managers, Office Staff, Gardeners, etc, so it is a Workplace.

10 Duties of controllers of work premises, plant or substances
(1) A person who has control of premises used by people as a place of work must ensure that the premises are safe and without risks to health.
(2) A person who has control of any plant or substance used by people at work must ensure that the plant or substance is safe and without risks to health when properly used.
(3) The duties of a person under this section:
(a) do not apply to premises, plant or substances used only by employees of the person, and
(b) do not apply to premises occupied only as a private dwelling or
to plant or substances used in any such premises, and
(c) extend to the means of access to or exit from a place of work, and
(d) apply only if the premises, plant or substances are controlled in the course of a trade, business or other undertaking (whether for profit or not) of the person.

Again a reference to Volunteerism.

I could go on, but I think my point is made.

Oh, and by the way, don't just think employers get it in the neck because the Act refers to workers as well.

20 Duties of employees
(1) An employee must, while at work, take reasonable care for the health and safety of people who are at the employee’s place of work and who may be affected by the employee’s acts or omissions at work.
(2) An employee must, while at work, co-operate with his or her employer or other person so far as is necessary to enable compliance with any requirement under this Act or the regulations that is imposed in the interests of health, safety and welfare on the employer or any other person.

[Chronicle]

Very, very sorry for the triple posts, but with the 10 minute rule it makes it a bit hard not to.

I just found this little gem on the NSW Workcover Site, under the FAQ (frequently Asked Questions) part.

An employer's obligation to volunteer workers or work experience students is to exercise the duty of care under section 8 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

Argument over!!!, see the post above for section 8.

[Onlooker]

Thanks for the lesson in OH&S there Cronicle, this is obviusly and area that you have a bit of knowledge,unlike us punters who just see stuff at the track and think,WOW there is no way I could get my guys to do that at the plant.

[Beejay17]

Originally posted by Chronicle
Very, very sorry for the triple posts, but with the 10 minute rule it makes it a bit hard not to.

I just found this little gem on the NSW Workcover Site, under the FAQ (frequently Asked Questions) part.

Argument over!!!, see the post above for section 8.

Chronicle

I think we are on the same side on this. Read my third parargaph a bit closer. I agree with you on some points but there must be a tie-in to a contract of employment for SOMEONE. The references in the Act are about employer and places of work.

Lets just agree to disagree.

[Beejay17]

Chronicle

I was not suggesting you mentioned the trucking example. I was using it as an axample for everybody, not attacking your posts.