Atlast Common Sense

[nearlythere]

It appears though that these seem more effective when the rider is standing on the pedals rather than in the seated position.

I take it this is Kurnal's Law gained from practical experience? Can we expect to see a paper published soon?

[kurnal]

Has anyone seen any details of how these exemptions for the emergency services would actually be delivered?

I would think they are unlikely to change the underpinning legislation or the Management Regs to make exeptions for the Services, due to European directives.
Presumably the Secretary of State will issue guidance on enforcement instead? Or a new code of practice for the emergency services?

[nearlythere]

The Government have announced today that the needless red tape and silly health and safety legislation will finally be exempted from UK Police and Fire Services following very sad and needless fatalities where emergency service personnel were not allowed to attempt rescues for fear of losing their jobs

If red tape is needless and health and safety legislation silly, should everyone in the country not be excempt from it?

[Midland Retty]

The following is an excerpt taken from a presentation, and accompanying paper, written by Patrick Stanton, a seasoned USAR officer, former firefighter, and soldier, and currently the Director General of "British Civil Defence".

He is also a senior figure within the Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies. He talks about the role of rescuers and delivered a speech to USAR delegates in Italy in 2008

In it he says:-

"Health and Safety (H&S) Rules
In major events many dual roll rescuers are forced by senior officers to obey H&S rules that were
designed for everyday situations. Any experienced rescuer knows that in extraordinary circumstances
such rules may not only be inappropriate but that in obeying them, lives will be lost. In the UK there
are countless examples of this.
- They slow down the work to a totally unacceptable level.
- They may inhibit access to known trapped or injured casualties.
- Being forced to obey rigid, inappropriate rules can cause severe stress in many situations.
- In some services inappropriate working periods, e.g., four hours on duty, four off, is also a known
stressor for rescuers. UK Fire Services are a good example of this problem in mass emergency
situations."

Full excerpt can be seen by following http://www.impact-kenniscentrum.nl/index.php?pag=775&userlang=en

[wee brian]

So when the Officer in charge sends a bunch of firefighters to certain death he would be exempt from prosecution?

[Psuedonym]

A reversal back to the old days eh? Don't you believe it. It's just another media friendly soundbite to lull the masses into submission while they bite yer arse.

Psuedonym will not be allowed back on this forum until he has accepted the truth behind our great and glorious leaders vision for you.

Big brothers still watching you....

[kurnal]

Thats a very interesting link Retty thanks for that. The author does not like dual roles though, I would be interested know the full background to that. Can any nation afford a dedicated USAR / Civil defence capability? The emergency services and armed forces rely on people performing dual roles in their core functions - the TA and RDS. 

Wee B there  are two extremes and both indefensible.

1- Sending fire fighters to a certain death
..............................
100-Doing nothing and watching somebody die needlessly who could be saved.

We are looking for the middle ground say at the 40-60 mark. Authorising crews to take some element of risk in a credible and considered attempt to save a life that can be saved, but not taking any risk to save a life where there is no hope, or property. Thats how the concept of dynamic risk assessment was originally sold.

[Steven N]

One of the major points to be considered is that we now live in a vastly different world to twenty, thirty or forty years ago when lots of us joined the fire service (brigade). Things that I have seen done or heard of would almost get you imprisoned these days & I'm talking about things that were done with good intentions.
Ambulance chasers exist , if people die or are injured relatives etc rightly want to know why. This has to be dealt with, its no good just saying thats the job you joined up to do, I agree that I expect to have my life put in extreme risk on occasions and could never willingly stand by watching any one die or be severly injured but who joined to be killed or maimed by gung ho stupidity?
A well trained knowlegdable officer & well trained firefighters will overcome problems.
The H&S culture wont go away, managed properly the emergency services will cope after all haven't many of us on here commented on our inventiveness?

[Midland Retty]

The author does not like dual roles though, I would be interested know the full background to that. Can any nation afford a dedicated USAR / Civil defence capability?

I think his comments derive from past experiences, particular back in the days when firefighters weren't given much USAR input. Today of course the UK Fire Service has a dedicated International SAR team, and most (if not all) Brigades have their own dedicated USAR technicians at county level. Perhaps Patrick's opinion of firefighters undertaking USAR may have changed.

But he makes an important point. The point is that if you are expected to undertake a role you should be capable of actually forfilling that role, and not just have a well meaning "stab at it", which i think the fire service probably did in days gone by with regard to USAR to some extent.

The Government "New Dimension" project has meant that dedicated teams of firefighters are now specifically trained in USAR, and are much more skilled, knowledgeable, and seasoned in this field than ever before.

[Billy]

Stevo

I agree with your points and I come predominately from a training background.
Prior to that I was a Firey, LFF, sub and Stn/O in areas of Strathclyde where some housing estates were being torched on a regular basis. This is where we served our 'apprenticeship' and learned our trade.
We learned from our experiences, good and bad and were judged on how good you were at dealing with fires.
 Health and Safety was known as common sense and "Ahm no putting anybody in there cos its gonnae collapse" equates to "I have carried out a DRA and am going to adopt defensive firefighting" nowadays.

So if we concede that H&S was always considered, why does everyone think that there is even more emphasis on it nowadays..?
The cynic in me can give first hand accounts where people have quoted health and Safety reasons for not commiting crews when the real reason is that they have limited experience and have erred too heavily on the side of Safety.
This in my opinion is an organisational issue but trying to justify this to good experienced crews who would have been in there and extinguished the same type of fire 10 years ago is difficult.
I have always said that as our exposure to operational incidents decreases, we must increase our training proportionately to maintain our skills.
This includes Health and Safety training and replicating realistic scenarios to challenge personnel and develop them.
We always have and always will be judged more critically in relation to how we perform at an incident so we need to make sure that we support and develop our personnel in this area.

[Mike Buckley]

Having done health and safety both in a brigade and outside in industry, the major part of the problem is not the legislation itself but the way it is used.

Too often H&S has been used as a reason to stop something which the management or the workforce didn't like. I have been asked to stop the lunchtime kick around on the grounds of health and safety, the basic reason was the MD didn't like it but he didn't want to ban it himself because of the aggro.

Similarly there have been a number of times when employees have refused to do something on the grounds of health and safety but really because they didn't want to do it.

In my view the real key is to have competent people i.e. people who have the knowledge, the training and the experience to carry out the task. It is up to management to make sure that the people are competent to do the job and not just ban things. This is going to mean more training and exposing people to a risk but making sure that risk is under reasonable control. Yes things are going to go wrong but it should be learning experience and if it is properly planned nothing too serious should happen.