HSE International

Phillip Hughes: Cricket helmets redesigned after batsman’s death

A British-based firm has designed a cricket helmet aimed at preventing another tragic death like that of Australian Phillip Hughes last year.

The 25-year-old batsman died when he was struck on the back of the neck by a short-pitched delivery in Sydney.

The incident was described as a “freak” by medical experts.

Hampshire-based manufacturer Masuri has given the BBC an exclusive look at its prototype helmet, which features extra protection at the rear.

Batting for South Australia in a Sheffield Shield game against New South Wales in Sydney, Hughes was hit by a bouncer from Sean Abbott.

The batsman, who was wearing a Masuri helmet, collapsed immediately and died in hospital two days later.

After his death, the company began investigating a possible redesign and have introduced a “stemguard”, a device made of foam and a rubber-like compound that clips onto the back of a helmet.

According to the company, Masuri provide “the most widely used helmet in Professional Cricket”.

Design consultant Alan Meeks believes it will be both light and robust enough to prevent serious injury

“This arrangement of the foam and honeycomb gives as much protection as a hard helmet,” he told BBC Sport.

“Even though it moves around and will touch the player when the ball hits them, it will absorb a significant amount of energy.”

The International Cricket Council, which governs the game, has raised its recommendations for helmet safety standards in recent years.

However, in response to the growth in popularity of the 20-over format of the game, which encourages a greater range of strokes and a riskier style of batting, research and development had focused on protecting a batman’s face.

The death of Hughes, who played 26 Tests for Australia, changed things.

“That tragic event definitely had an impact on the public,” said Masuri’s managing director, Sam Miller.

“I don’t think there was a helmet on the market which would have protected Phillip.

“There had been some talk of protection to that area in the past, but it had been a footnote.”

Phillip Hughes: BBC Sport looks back at Australia batsman’s career

The “stemguard” has been tested extensively in a laboratory while it awaits production. Masuri say they have consulted international cricket boards throughout the design process.

A patent for the product is pending but its introduction in matches will depend on players’ desire to wear the redesigned helmets.

Original Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/31421607?ocid=socialflow_twitter


Fifty Shades of Grey 999 call spike expected by London Fire Brigade

Firefighters have said they are anticipating an increase in call-outs with the release of Fifty Shades of Grey at the cinema.

London Fire Brigade (LFB) said it was “concerned” the 13 February release could lead to a “spike” in people being stuck or trapped in handcuffs or rings.

Since April it has attended 393 such incidents.

LFB said people should use “common sense” but always call 999 in a genuine emergency.

The film, based on the novel by EL James, has been described as a “mummy-porn romance” and follows an affair between student Anastasia Steele and billionaire Christian Grey.

Dave Brown from LFB said: “The Fifty Shades effect seems to spike handcuff incidents so we hope film-goers will use common sense and avoid leaving themselves red-faced.


Since April 2013 the capital’s fire crews have:

  • Attended 28 incidents involving people being trapped in handcuffs
  • Removed 293 rings, including seven from male genitalia
  • Attended other incidents, including releasing men’s genitals from toasters or vacuum cleaners

“I’d like to remind everyone that 999 is an emergency number and should only be used as such.”

The brigade said on average it was called to more than one embarrassing incident every day at a cost of about £295 to the taxpayer each time.

In November firefighters were called by doctors at King’s College Hospital to cut two steel rings from a man’s genitals, which he had been unable to remove for three days.

On another occasion the brigade was called by a woman whose husband had become locked in a chastity belt.

A spokesman added that while there could sometimes be a “funny side” to some of these predicament, they could be painful and “end up wasting emergency service time”.

He added: “Our advice is to try and avoid getting in that position in the first place.”

Original Source: http://bbc.in/17kztpn

England bans smoking in cars with children

Drivers in England will be banned from smoking in their cars if they are carrying children as passengers.

The move, which will become law on 1 October, follows a similar ban in Wales and aims to protect young people under 18 from second-hand smoke. Scotland is also considering introducing a ban.

Anyone found flouting the law in England could be fined £50.

The British Lung Foundation welcomed the ban as a victory, but smokers’ group Forest said it was unenforceable.

It will not apply to anyone driving alone or driving in a convertible car with the top down.

The regulations were passed in the Commons after 342 MPs voted in favour of legislation while just 74 voted against.

More than 430,000 children are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars each week, according to the British Lung Foundation,

Passive smoke in children can increase the risk of asthma, meningitis and cot death, say public health experts.

Professor Dame Sally Davies: “We need to protect our children”

While many support a ban, some say it is an unnecessary intrusion.

‘Important step’

Public Health Minister, Jane Ellison, said: “Three million children are exposed to second hand smoke in cars, putting their health at risk.

“We know that many of them feel embarrassed or frightened to ask adults to stop smoking which is why the regulations are an important step in protecting children from the harms of secondhand smoke.”

Dr Penny Woods, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: “This is a tremendous victory.

“We urge the Government to show the same commitment to introduce standardised packaging for all tobacco products, in order to protect the 200,000 children taking up smoking every year in this country.

“We are certain that these measures together will prove to be two of the most significant milestones for public health since the smoke-free legislation of 2007.”

But Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest, said the legislation was excessive.

“The overwhelming majority of smokers know it’s inconsiderate to smoke in a car with children and they don’t do it. They don’t need the state micro-managing their lives,” he said.

“The police won’t be able to enforce the law on their own so the government will need a small army of snoopers to report people.”


Passive smoking

  • Smoke can stay in the air for up to two and a half hours even with a window open
  • This also applies in small enclosed places – like cars
  • Second-hand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer
  • Exposure to second-hand smoke has been strongly linked to chest infections, asthma, ear problems and cot death in children
  • Bans on smoking in cars when children are present already exist in some US states, including California, as well as in parts of Canada and Australia

Original Source: http://bbc.in/1Mdaa8v

House of Lords members oppose deregulation of health and safety rules

New rules that could see certain self-employed workers exempt from health and safety law have faced opposition during a debate in the House of Lords.

The first clause of the Government’s Deregulation Bill, which has been criticised for its potential to lead to increased levels of injury, underwent severe scrutiny during its Report stage discussion in the Lords on February 3.

During the discussion, Opposition spokesman Lord McKenzie of Luton, who put forward amendments to introduce an independent review of the plans, said: “A raft of professional organisations concerned with occupational health and safety, including IOSH, RoSPA, IIRSM, Safety Groups UK, the Royal Society for Public Health and others, have all criticised the approach, saying that it will cause dangerous confusion, increasing the risk of work-related injury, illness and death.

“Faced with the scale of the concerns reflected in those consultation responses, it would be foolhardy for the Government to proceed as planned.”

Another opponent to the clause, Baroness Donaghy, described it as being a “charter for cowboys”, while Lord Jordan said: “The Government proposals, in their present form, will carry a cost: not in money, but in lives.”

Government spokesman Lord Wallace of Saltaire said ministers were still considering the issue as following a public consultation they had not “reached an entire consensus”, despite the consultation having closed five months ago.

Commenting on the debate, Richard Jones, head of policy and public affairs at the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), said: “We urge the Government to heed the serious concerns raised by Peers, business, professional bodies and trade unions and to drop these misguided proposals.

“Industry has heavily criticised them as not fit for purpose and creating a substantial burden. Peers have labelled them a ‘step backwards’ and said leaving the law as it is would be the far better option.

“The Government now has the opportunity to listen and take the socially responsible and sustainable enterprise path that IOSH and others have advocated – better education and more support for business.”

In light of the announcement that the Government is still considering the findings of the public consultation, Lord McKenzie gave notice that the issue could be tabled again if the Government’s position on Clause 1 remains unchanged, when the Deregulation Bill has its Third Reading in the House of Lords in coming weeks.

Original Source: http://bit.ly/1DFgBO7

Where are Britain’s most dangerous motorways?



Chilling figures have revealed the casualty rates on the UK’s motorways.

They show that in 2013, there were nearly four casualties (those killed or seriously injured) for every mile of the UK’s 2,262 motorway network.

The South East fares the worst with 6.03 casualties per mile and in London it was just over 5.63.

In contrast, Scotland’s motorways appeared the safest, with a casualty rate of only just over 1.60 per mile. The next-safest motorway stretches were in south-west England where the rate was just over 2.48 per mile.

In total there were 8,732 deaths or serious injuries on Britain’s motorways in 2013, according to figures from the Department for Transport. This was a reduction on the 2012 total of 9,136.

Swiftcover.com product manager Roman Bryl said: ‘In 2013, motorways carried 20% of all British motor traffic , and it is reassuring that they are statistically the safest road type.

‘However, this research shows that blackspots still exist and it’s imperative that drivers should not be complacent, even when driving on familiar routes.’


  • Great Britain: 2,262 miles; 8,732 casualties; 3.86 casualties per mile.
  • South-east England: 407; 2,453; 6.03
  • London: 37; 210; 5.62
  • East of England: 166; 891; 5.37
  • North-west England: 402; 1,548; 3.85
  • East Midlands: 121; 456; 3.76
  • West Midlands: 267; 961; 3.59
  • Yorkshire and the Humber: 252, 853, 3.39
  • Wales: 88; 290; 3.30
  • North-east England: 36; 110; 3.05
  • South-west England: 203; 504; 2.48
  • Scotland: 284; 456; 1.61

Original Source: http://bit.ly/1AbQY7V

Firms sentenced after airport worker breaks leg

Two firms have been prosecuted after a worker suffered a broken leg when he deliberately steered his ride-on cleaning machine into a balustrade when the brakes failed in order to avoid hitting pedestrians in Stansted airport.

Carl Marshall, 28, of Little Dunmow, Essex, was forced to veer into the central dividing balustrade after brakes on the scrubber-drier machine failed to respond as he rode down a sloping passenger ramp.

As the machine came to a halt, passengers rushed to his aid and helped to free his trapped legs. Mr Marshall suffered a broken right thigh, sprained right knee and two sprained ankles, requiring four days’ treatment in hospital. He has since returned to work.

The incident, on 2 July 2013, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which today (10 Feb) prosecuted Mr Marshall’s employer, ISS Facility Services Ltd, of Surrey, and the maintenance contractor Michael Laryea, trading as Lamick Floor Machines, of Isleworth, Middlesex.

Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court heard that once Mr Marshall realised the brakes were not slowing the vehicle during descent, he shouted for passengers to get out of the way and pulled the steering wheel hard to the right to slow the machine against the central walkway balustrade. Passengers then came to help and stopped the machine moving further by leaning against it, and then freed Mr Marshall’s legs which had become trapped.

HSE’s investigation found that the scrubber drier machine had a worn and ineffective brake that had been poorly maintained. A second machine was also found to have similar defects.

ISS Facility Services Limited of Genesis Business Park, Albert Drive, Woking, Surrey, was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £5,490 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Michael Laryea, trading as Lamick Floor Machines, of Elmer Gardens, Isleworth, Middlesex was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £5,490 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Glyn Davies said:

“Mr Marshall’s painful injuries could have been avoided had the ride-on scrubber drier machines been regularly checked in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and maintained in good repair. ISS and Michael Laryea of Lamick failed to make sure the machine was safe to operate.

“This has been an expensive lesson for both these businesses to learn; but employers should understand that serious breaches of health and safety law that put workers’ safety at risk are likely to result in similarly serious outcomes.”

More details about working safely with work equipment and machinery can be found on the HSE website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/index.htm

Original Source: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2015/firms-sentenced-after-airport-worker-breaks-leg/?

Getting behind the numbers: a different approach to safety reporting

By Andrew Petrie

It’s very unusual nowadays to see an organisation safety department that does not have a large team of people dedicated to gathering numbers and producing reports with pages and pages of data and graphs. As safety has grown in importance over recent years it has rightly made its way up an organisation’s agenda and will often be the first item in the company’s monthly report executive meetings.

Accompanying this rise in prominence the need for safety data has also grown to the point that collection and management of safety data has now taken on a life of its own. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but where this breaks down is that reporting pages of safety data is meaningless unless you’re also passing over real information to the management team. Most executive managers are extremely busy and only have limited time and mental processing capacity to deal with any topic. They really do want to take safety seriously but they need short concise pieces of information not pages of data and graphs.

Time at executive meetings is also very short, you need to focus the time you have on the issues that need to be resolved. As the safety input you need to lead the discussion on safety, not let the meeting get distracted discussing minor incidents. That’s not the role of an executive meeting.

There is a common rule for passing on information and that is people can only process and remember ten pieces of information at any one time. Why not use that approach to change the way you produce safety reports and lead management meetings?

Instead of presenting the pages of data, change the focus of your report to present up to ten pieces of information. I am not saying ditch the data all together, have it in an appendix or available to be presented if required, but move the focus away from numbers and graphs to relevant information and what needs to be done about it. Here are some examples of issues you could discuss in the monthly report and meeting.

  • What are the trends, are we improving or getting worse?
  • What significant actions are overdue or need executive intervention to get prioritised?
  • Have our initiatives been working, what needs to be done to make them better?
  • What lessons have we learned and what needs to be done to share them?
  • Are there any emerging issues or threats that they need to be aware of?
  • What has analysis of the data shown, are there any systematic failures behind the numbers?

Remember at all times who the audience is and what you want from them. There are two basic questions to ask yourself when considering what to include in your ten items. Firstly, do they really need to know this information and secondly, do I need them to take some action to address an issue. If it passes either of these tests then add it to your report, if not leave it out.

On some occasions they will ask to see some additional data, and if so then it’s fine to include that in the next month’s report, just note that it was in response to a specific request and remember to take it out the following month. Reports will grow and grow with information over time and if no one can remember who requested it or why, once it has fulfilled its purpose, take it out.

It’s very easy to fall into the trap of providing lots of pieces of information to show what a great job you are doing, and in doing so you are effectively wasting important management time. The executive management team will appreciate you giving then short concise pieces of information in the long term and see you as being much more effective than someone who just provides pages of data.

Andrew Petrie is head of safety and assurance at Network Rail Consulting

Original Source: http://ubm.io/1vglXYW

New focus on Safer Logistics

The aim of Safer Logistics is to encourage those in the supply chain sector to take a proactive approach to safety. Throughout the event the new theatre will feature a host of seminars providing visitors with a wealth of education and advice on tackling safety hot spots in warehousing and logistics.

Safer Logistics is officially sponsored by Alcumus, Toyota Material Handling UK and A-Safe; as well as supported by partners such as the Fork Lift Truck Association (FLTA), the United Kingdom Warehousing Association (UKWA), and the Food Storage and Distribution Federation (FSDF). The event will include a panel discussion around the use of sprinklers in the warehouse, a seminar looking at a two-pronged approach to the management of health and safety in the road haulage sector and an exhibition area with a cross-section of product and service providers.

${USER_DISPLAY_NAME}Chris Sturman, CEO of the FSDF said: “Having followed the Safer Logistics campaign in the media, we are very excited to see it extended into The Health & Safety Event. This is a growing exhibition, in the heartland of the UK manufacturing industry and the logistics sector and offers companies a great opportunity to become more proactive in relation to their safety practices. The exhibition dovetails well with our own initiatives such as the flagship Health and Safety Leadership Programme and the Health & Safety Awards, both of which we launched last year.”

Peter Harvey, CEO of the FLTA, added: ”Fork lift trucks are the most dangerous type of workplace transport – seriously injuring as many as 800 workers each year. Engaging staff at all levels is key to reducing risk on site, so we are proud to support Safer Logistics, which shares our long-standing commitment to safety and track record for instigating change.”

The Health & Safety Event is joined by three co-located exhibitions – Maintec 2015, Facilities Management 2015, and Cleaning 2015.

The Health & Safety Event director Tim Else said: “Four complementary exhibitions and educational events under one roof at the NEC creates the central UK hub that health and safety professionals really want – in the centre of the country. Safety, facilities, maintenance and cleaning and hygiene suppliers will serve to provide a beneficial visiting experience.”

The full Safer Logistics seminar programme for the three day event can be viewed online at www.healthandsafetyevents.co.uk.

Original Source: http://www.ipesearch.co.uk/page_560147.asp?

Large ‘unsafe’ lorries banned from London’s roads to protect cyclists

Large lorries travelling without safety equipment are set to be banned from London’s roads as part of efforts to protect cyclists.

Vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes will be required to have side guards and extra mirrors from September 1 this year under new laws.

Lorry drivers face fines of £1000 if they ignore the regulations, which apply to all roads in Greater London except motorways.

Five out of the 13 cyclists killed on the capital’s roads last year were hit by HGVs, provisional figures show.

The initiative is being enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, along with Transport for London and the Department for Transport.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said the lives of cyclists and pedestrians would be “much safer” under the new rules.

He said: “We know that a large number of cyclist deaths and serious injuries involve a relatively small number of trucks and lorries that are not fitted with basic safety equipment.

“Such vehicles are not welcome in the capital and the Safer Lorry Scheme will see them effectively banned from our streets.

“The lives of thousands of cyclists and pedestrians will be much safer as a result and I urge all operators of HGVs to get on board and make it a success.”

Original Source:

“The big agenda” Neal Stone, acting chief executive of the British Safety Council, talks to Health and Safety Week

1. This year, Health and Safety Week is promoting occupational health. What are the main challenges that the industry is facing in occupational health?

For a long time, everyone in health and safety used to use the annual fatal injury statistics as the main metric of health and safety performance in Great Britain. The reality is that you have to look far more widely; fatal injuries are very serious and tragic in their consequences, but they pale into insignificance when you think about the number of people still dying as a result of occupational disease in Great Britain every year.

The legacy of people having to work with materials like asbestos and silica will be with us for a long time. I applaud the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for their recent campaign on asbestos, and we mustn’t lose sight of issues like this. Occupational health is not just about musculoskeletal disorders, stress and fitness, it’s a very big agenda and an issue that we have to tackle properly.

2. It has been said that health is sometimes sidelined to make way for safety. What do you think we, as an industry, can do to make health more prominent?

I don’t share the analysis that health has been neglected in favour of safety. I think a lot of time and effort has been devoted to discussions around occupational health issues.

When I worked at HSE there was a view that an inspector could go into a workplace and identify if the equipment wasn’t properly maintained or operating properly, whereas some health conditions like stress and musculoskeletal disorders can be very difficult to identify. Some occupational health conditions are not immediately apparent even to the expert practitioner.

We have got to have a far more grown up, mature debate about occupational health. Employers and employees should have the confidence to discuss health issues in the workplace and know they will be addressed.

Organisations like the British Safety Council have got a tremendous role to play in raising awareness and giving employers the confidence that tackling occupational health doesn’t need to be expensive, and importantly will produce real benefits and real value.

The British Safety Council’s annual conference in 2014 focused on occupational health. It ranged from issues like stress and mental health, right through to issues like asbestos-related disease.

It’s not a desert out there. Responsible, leading employers of all sizes and all sectors have got some great occupational health provision in place and we need to see that this provision is replicated.

3. How does the British Safety Council promote occupational health to its members?

Our full range of products and services and our policies focus on occupational health. Whether it’s one of our qualifications or training or our award schemes, we recognise that if you focus on safety to the exclusion of health, the consequences are going to be very serious. Statistics show that 80 per cent of days lost at work are through ill health, not injury.

The British Safety Council tries to raise awareness through campaigns like Health & Safety Week and other initiatives, and plays its part in developing the competence of health and safety managers by helping them to understand the measures they need to be thinking about to address occupational health risks.

4. What kind of initiatives would you like to see being run for this year’s Health and Safety Week?

I think the case has been made well for the social benefits of looking after health, but there is a really powerful business case to made for the financial benefits of investing in simple health measures.

One of the things the British Safety Council will be doing later this year [Autumn 2015] is re-publishing our review of the evidence on the business benefits of health and safety, with a new chapter focusing on occupational health.

5. What can the British Safety Council bring to this campaign?

One of the most important things we can do is open the door to our members. We’ve got 6,000 members, most of whom are in the UK and a number of whom have got really great health programmes in place. We’ll be encouraging our members to share their experiences and knowledge.

Organisations like to see what their peers are doing and if we can play a small role in helping to create a repository of knowledge and greater sharing then we’ll do that.

6. Now in its second year, Health and Safety Week is still quite young. What do you think an initiative like this can bring to the industry?

One of the achievements of Health & Safety Week is that it brings together a whole range of organisations that are committed to playing their part to improve workplace health and safety. It is a massive achievement to get all those organisations to work together to help make that vision a reality.

There are still regrettably some big misconceptions about health and safety among the public and there is a powerful argument to be made for working together and delivering key messages of health and safety.

I think it’s very important that the participating organisations actively support health and safety week and come together to work in co-operation to publicise the real benefits of well managed health and safety.

7. Do you have any advice for SME managers who might not know too much about where to begin?

This was one of the main challenges of the Löfstedt review into health and safety framework. It’s a challenge that everyone’s been grappling with for years – how to make health and safety regulation more understandable and accessible to small and micro organisations.

We need to knock on the head the misconception that it requires every small organisation to employ someone who understands every single bit of the law and has a compendium knowledge of health and safety.

Some of the key measures that small organisations have to take are very simple, and the legal duties placed on them are not onerous. The HSE is in the process of reviewing all of its guidance to make it more accessible and understandable. The British Safety Council is playing its part too, for example through our e-learning products, to ensure SMEs have the competence to sensibly and proportionately manage workplace risks.

Original Source: http://www.healthandsafetyweek.com/news/2015/2/6/interview-with-neal-stone