Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
3 Machinery Farm Deaths in 3 Weeks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PostHarvest" data-source="post: 8793942" data-attributes="member: 1570"><p>I've said this before and been shot down for it but I'm convinced that its a factor in farming's poor safety record. Working to high safety standards costs money. If a builder supplies his brickies with hard hats, high vis jackets, fall arrest equipment etc and a construction site employs banksmen to guide vehicles, their cost just goes on the bill so the customer ends up paying for it all. The contractor probably adds a margin on the cost for admin, so actually makes a bit of extra profit out of safety measures. An earlier writer compares farming with the railways - but safe working on the railways must cost a fortune, special high vis, strictly defined working practices, safety lookouts etc - the cost of all this is just added to the ticket price, or claimed from HMG as subsidy. But if HSE demands that a veg grower modifies his harvester which apparently complies with continental safety standards but not the gold plated british standards [comment based on at least three recent cases I've worked on] and the grower asks the supermarket for 2p/box to cover the cost of the extra safety measures, the supermarket buyer just imports from China/Chile/wherever. So, as I see it, the poor safety record in agriculture is linked to low profitability.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PostHarvest, post: 8793942, member: 1570"] I've said this before and been shot down for it but I'm convinced that its a factor in farming's poor safety record. Working to high safety standards costs money. If a builder supplies his brickies with hard hats, high vis jackets, fall arrest equipment etc and a construction site employs banksmen to guide vehicles, their cost just goes on the bill so the customer ends up paying for it all. The contractor probably adds a margin on the cost for admin, so actually makes a bit of extra profit out of safety measures. An earlier writer compares farming with the railways - but safe working on the railways must cost a fortune, special high vis, strictly defined working practices, safety lookouts etc - the cost of all this is just added to the ticket price, or claimed from HMG as subsidy. But if HSE demands that a veg grower modifies his harvester which apparently complies with continental safety standards but not the gold plated british standards [comment based on at least three recent cases I've worked on] and the grower asks the supermarket for 2p/box to cover the cost of the extra safety measures, the supermarket buyer just imports from China/Chile/wherever. So, as I see it, the poor safety record in agriculture is linked to low profitability. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
3 Machinery Farm Deaths in 3 Weeks
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top