Things that would improve farm safety ?

[Derrick Hughes]

So would you say its ok for me to drive my track digger down the road dispute it being illegal because its a better tool for the job in hand than the wheel digger I have in the yard ?
Or should I compromise and stay legal

If its more than crossing the road then buy a lowloader or get a mate to move it , if the track comes off on the road which can happen even on a newish one you will wish you had [emoji23]

 

[Henarar]

If its more than crossing the road then buy a lowloader or get a mate to move it , if the track comes off on the road which can happen even on a newish one you will wish you had [emoji23]

I do
But it seems you can drive any law braking machine down the road as long as its the best tool for the job when you get there.
Anyway wish me luck as I have to get it out of the brambles first, perhaps I should paint it green with orange tracks to make it look more

 

[Clive]

So would you say its ok for me to drive my track digger down the road dispute it being illegal because its a better tool for the job in hand than the wheel digger I have in the yard ?
Or should I compromise and stay legal

silly post really

you should put your tracked digger on a low loader .......... just as we do with out losdall

 

[Clive]

No more than cars that can go faster than 70 mph should be banned from sale

so why aren’t they ?

 

[Highland Mule]

if you are not driving tractors on the roads we are you lack relevant experience to be telling me what is safe, if we don’t use dual carriageways we stop farming, we are completely surrounded by them dobwe need to find the safest possible solutions..... which we have ,

Again, jumping to conclusions. I too drive tractors on dual carriageways, rated at 70mph and with cars far in excess of that (some of the fastest speeds in Britain are local to me), and have been doing so for 30 plus years.

I just take objection to you claiming that H&S is an acceptable excuse for routine lawlessness, when other options are available.

 

[Highland Mule]

if no one is going over 40kph I guess banning sales of tractors that can go faster should be insisted upon ??

Or run them at lower revs and save fuel? That’s how the early high speed gearboxes were advertised, of course. You don’t have to be at full revs in top gear.

 

[thesilentone]

I think as vehicle numbers continue to increase, perhaps regional road and time restrictions could be considered. On many roads in the Midlands/South of the Uk, it's simply dangerous to be travelling slowly. Vehicle numbers are massive, and no one is prepared for the unexpected.

No excuses, it's just a plain fact. The objective is to reduce risk, based on what that risk(s) actually is/are. Slow moving vehicles amongst a high volume of fast moving is a risk.

 

[Pilatus]

Overhead electric cable detectors should be fitted as standard to all new telescopic handlers. For goodness cable detectors have been available for long enough so why haven’t JCB etc been fitting them? Was/ is it a question of cost before caring about life?

 

[Forever Fendt]

dogs are more than able to switch on a pto, move a spool or click a gearbox into drive - Crazy having them in cabs but see it a lot

We stood talking to a farmer who had got out to open a gate and all of a sudden a big thud and the dog had let the power Harrow combination down, Another farmer unblocking a baler with engine running and the jack Russell jumping around the cab barking at me

 

[Forever Fendt]

Strobe lights on the back of all trailers should be law, the times you see tractors on duel carriage ways with beacon on tractor obscured by a load of bales or similar

 

[thesilentone]

Overhead electric cable detectors should be fitted as standard to all new telescopic handlers. For goodness cable detectors have been available for long enough so why haven’t JCB etc been fitting them? Was/ is it a question of cost before caring about life?

The reason must be risk based, as the whole construction industry do not have them as standard.

However, if there are to be excavations carried out, a risk assessment will include scanning and marking underground, and marking overhead cables on the work schedule.

Foreign language to the ag sector................

 

[bitwrx]

People's lives have a price everywhere. We could put crash barriers alongside every road, but we don't because it would be too expensive. So if you lose control and crash into a tree and die, your life was lost because of a safety measure not installed due to cost. Ergo every life has a price, its just a case of what that price is. Similarly in the NHS if a drug costs more than the amount of lives saved when valued at (IIRC) about £30k per year of life, then the NHS does not provide that drug.

What you're talking about in H&S-speak is the tolerability of risk, proportionality, and reasonable practicability.

There are risks which are intolerable; for me, on my farm, that includes unguarded PTOs, and some other things. For other people on their farms, that list will be different. If those risks are present, work stops. No ifs, no buts.

Way below that are the broadly acceptable risks. The ones that are so unlikely, or so minor in consequence that they are accepted by default. An example on our farm is the risk of one of the team scalding their hand when they're making a cup of tea.

In the middle - the very broad middle - is a region of risk where the risks are only tolerable if the risk has been reduced using all reasonably practicable measures.

In this context, reasonably practicable measures are those for which the time, cost and trouble of implementation is not grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit achieved.

So on your crash barrier example:
On a good straight road with no particular hazards, the safety benefit of crash barriers is negligible, so the cost is grossly disproportionate.
On a kinked bridge over a railway line, the cost of barriers is probably quite high, but because of the safety benefit that would be achieved (reduced likelihood of a high-consequence event), it may be considered reasonably practicable to install them.

The concept of proportionality and reasonable practicability is fundamental to the health and safety at work act. The original test case establishing the principle dates from 1949.

In my view, the following section of the H&S at work act is all we really need to know. After that, it's just a case of admitting to ourselves just how much risk we're willing to tolerate, and what risk reduction measures we would consider grossly disproportionate.

It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his/her employees" (emphasis added), and in particular that such a duty extends to:

• Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;
• Arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;
• Provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
• So far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer's control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;
• Provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.

It's worth noting that a control measure being unaffordable does not make it grossly disproportionate. Something I will have to face up to if I'm ever in the situation where I can't afford to replace a PTO guard.

 

[Andrew]

so why aren’t they ?

Cars aren’t restricted as they can go to Europe and go faster than 70 legally.

Tractors are in some countries. But what speed do you restrict it too?
50k because it’s legal on private land
40k because that’s legal on the road as long as you meet certain requirements
20mph as that’s legal if you don’t meet those requirements

Some farms here ship kit to Europe and back where 50k might be legal so what do they get set to?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

The reason must be risk based, as the whole construction industry do not have them as standard.

However, if there are to be excavations carried out, a risk assessment will include scanning and marking underground, and marking overhead cables on the work schedule.

Foreign language to the ag sector................

The construction industry always mark cables they are working nearby with tape and posts . I may pass under high voltage cables 20 times a day .you can't put posts and tape in fields, I did ask what the correct procedure was if you hit one, apart from praying its stay in the cab , and remember if the power goes off they will switch it back on up to 3 times

 

[Clive]

Are you moving it large distances? To outlying grain stores? An extra loadall worth considering?
We have three, often at least one away from home, cutting back to two would make things frustratingly inefficient

we only have one farmyard where we can keep any machinery otherwise a second loadall would be a good option

 

[DrWazzock]

Sometimes electronics don’t help us. A ruddy great lever and a heavy clutch pedal that must be operated simultaneously are a lot harder to accidentally engage than a dainty little button and less likely to engage on their own accord just because a spider walked across a circuit board.

 

[Clive]

Cars aren’t restricted as they can go to Europe and go faster than 70 legally.

Tractors are in some countries. But what speed do you restrict it too?
50k because it’s legal on private land
40k because that’s legal on the road as long as you meet certain requirements
20mph as that’s legal if you don’t meet those requirements

Some farms here ship kit to Europe and back where 50k might be legal so what do they get set to?

personally, I would say make all new tractors legal at 65kph on a dual carriageway - fit with air brakes, etc and add annual testing / higher level licenses / taco etc even

 

[Clive]

I too drive tractors on dual carriageways, rated at 70mph and with cars far in excess of that (some of the fastest speeds in Britain are local to me), and have been doing so for 30 plus years.

.................. and do you have 55kph tractors but ONLY ever drive at 40kph, if you do is that safer ? no way IMO 18mph is NOT an appropriate speed on a 80mph plus road , its dangerous


I object to the idea that common sense shouldn't be used - especially when safety is involved, any police officer that didn't agree would be a bit of an idiot frankly, hence why I have never heard of one of the many thousands of tractors using local dual carriageways being done for speeding in the last 30 years


there is no way it's safer to drive our loadall down than a38 right now at 18mph vs putting it on a purpose designed low-loader with air brakes and commercial axles at 55kph and there is no way I would ask any employee to do so or do so myself, I view its as far to high risk

 

[TechWise]

What you're talking about in H&S-speak is the tolerability of risk, proportionality, and reasonable practicability.

There are risks which are intolerable; for me, on my farm, that includes unguarded PTOs, and some other things. For other people on their farms, that list will be different. If those risks are present, work stops. No ifs, no buts.

Way below that are the broadly acceptable risks. The ones that are so unlikely, or so minor in consequence that they are accepted by default. An example on our farm is the risk of one of the team scalding their hand when they're making a cup of tea.

In the middle - the very broad middle - is a region of risk where the risks are only tolerable if the risk has been reduced using all reasonably practicable measures.

In this context, reasonably practicable measures are those for which the time, cost and trouble of implementation is not grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit achieved.

So on your crash barrier example:
On a good straight road with no particular hazards, the safety benefit of crash barriers is negligible, so the cost is grossly disproportionate.
On a kinked bridge over a railway line, the cost of barriers is probably quite high, but because of the safety benefit that would be achieved (reduced likelihood of a high-consequence event), it may be considered reasonably practicable to install them.

The concept of proportionality and reasonable practicability is fundamental to the health and safety at work act. The original test case establishing the principle dates from 1949.

In my view, the following section of the H&S at work act is all we really need to know. After that, it's just a case of admitting to ourselves just how much risk we're willing to tolerate, and what risk reduction measures we would consider grossly disproportionate.



It's worth noting that a control measure being unaffordable does not make it grossly disproportionate. Something I will have to face up to if I'm ever in the situation where I can't afford to replace a PTO guard.

What a breath of fresh air to read from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

[Andrew]

personally, I would say make all new tractors legal at 65kph on a dual carriageway - fit with air brakes, etc and add annual testing / higher level licenses / taco etc even

As would I, but as I said earlier this won’t happen due to the massive backlog in parliament due to brexit / covid.
Early 2016 saw the cancellation of plans for higher ag weights. At an NAAC meeting at JCB the day after we had the head of Ag Policing, NAAC transport consultant, a HSE bloke and a whole load of contractors telling the DFT bloke it would decrease road safety.

I seem to remember the main party arguing against it was the NFU. However it was 5 years ago so i could be wrong