Lowe Rider Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 An urban Myth.. started by an insurance broker... Read the fine print of your policy and see if it excludes coverage when not on an assumed road. They have done it in some sled and ATV policies... but I haven't seen it on, at least my, vehicle policies. Thanks for that quick reply, I guess I need to check the fine print. That would mean 4x4ing would be out as well if you had that clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Exactly.. as would being in your laneway... a store parking lot etc. I'm sure it's written into some policies... but not mine as far as I know. Most of the extractions on the towing website Matt posted are insurance jobs. They bid on the tender just like I do to retrieve crashed airplanes. Just imagine 600 man hours @ $50 to $120 an hour + equipment time. Edited January 8, 2009 by irishfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Have a movie dad took from the late 1950's where a friend was taking building supplies across to his cottage and went through. It took 6 guys 5 hours to cut the ice out to shore, hook a chain on it with an old anchor and use a come-along to pull it to shore. I think they even got it running and drove it home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Only 30 man hours Bernie... you can see they weren't gettin paid or had the labour board looking over their shoulders! lol The labour board is a big issue these days... even stopping contractors from travelling by boat thru light ice to my neighbours in late Nov/early Dec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2 tone z71 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Only 30 man hours Bernie... you can see they weren't gettin paid or had the labour board looking over their shoulders! lol The labour board is a big issue these days... even stopping contractors from travelling by boat thru light ice to my neighbours in late Nov/early Dec. yeah Wayne ,there out there and leaned on us pretty hard this yr,I thought we where good at hiding, but they find ya via building permits, pissy neighbours ,other contractors etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 ..and over zealous building inspectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassAsin Posted January 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) ok so as for goin throught the ice it is property damage or environmental damage and if it is sticking out an 1/8" it now becomes a liability if somone hits it. and insurance does cover if your company says no call the insurance board. as for the MOL i just spent 16 hours in class on a rigging and hoisting course to exract trucks and have another 4 hours for on ice stuff i need a course for. our divers can only go down on a volunteer basis otherwise 2 certified divers have to be in the water and one above ice controlling a regulated air tank and and blah blah blah! and our rig now has to be steel and stamped certified engineered becasue wood is no longer strong enough now a days i guess! and as for cutting a hole all the way to shore i guess they werent a mile or more out and others must have just loved them after that putting a big hole in the lake for the rest of the folk maybe should have taken a smaller load! hahah have heard many stories to date as to why they went through and all are just as funny from one to the next unless there is a tragedy involving someones health or a death. and yes they are insurance jobs that get bid on and can hit the 60 000$ mark at times what people dont realize is there is a price on everything up to the "rental" of a pylon, they have to pay themselves off somehow over time! and pay rate is quite respectable becasue of all the MOL training we must attend makes us government qualified and it is now law. Edited January 9, 2009 by BassAsin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowe Rider Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Only 30 man hours Bernie... you can see they weren't gettin paid or had the labour board looking over their shoulders! lol The labour board is a big issue these days... even stopping contractors from travelling by boat thru light ice to my neighbours in late Nov/early Dec. Unfortunately, people with common sense are getting screwed on the job because of stupid people. I've been told to wear my hard hat inside my excavator. What! if something comes through the roof of that thing a little piece of plastic isn't going to help me. I was told someone was working close to a building and stuck his head out to talk to someone and was hit by something from the roof. That is why, not law though. I told the inspector to give me a ticket and I'll see you in court, never did , wonder why? Another example is tying off with a harness at all times on motor lifts. Why? Cause some moron climbed on the railing when the thing didn't reach and fell to serious injury or death, must have left the common sense at home. Another pet peeve of mine is needing to be certified to hook up propane. I can't do it at work because it's dangerous without training but at home the same propane tank can be hooked up to the BBQ no problem. Asked my trainer what the difference was and he said there wasn't one. I don't see my buddy next door putting on the face shield, neoprene gloves and protective clothing as he put a new tank on the barbie. He always does the whosh explosion thing when he starts it, so who's more dangerous. It's going to come to the point that nothing will get done because of all the regs. Safety is great, just don't pick on me in the middle of a field with no hard hat on, use common sense, go pick on the brick layers, they never set up the scaffold right. I would never do anything to put my life on the line for work and you can avoid dangerous situations if you use common sense. Sorry for the rant. I feel better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob v Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Sure makes you wanna think twice about driving on unsafe ice !! On some of those jobs, wouldn't it have been easier to mark the vehicle, wait until spring and yank it out from shore then ?? Even if you had to pump the fuel outta the tank somehow while it was in the water to minimize enivronmental issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) There's probably more fuel spilled each week at the local marina than an entire tank of fuel in the vehicle Rob. Gasoline evaporates pretty much totally off the water surface. The 6 litres of oil in the engine is more of a hazard. Also with the newer vehicles and their pressurized fuel systems and filler caps they may not actually leak out. Edited January 10, 2009 by irishfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob v Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Makes me wonder even more about why they go to so much trouble to get the darned things our as soon as they can. My guess is the vehicles aren't salvagable/worth much after getting dunked. So why instead of spending so much time and effort cutting the bloody things outta the ice don't they wait until it's a bit easier ? I'm sure there's good reason for some i.e. too far off shore etc, but others - what the heck - wait till the ice is gone, hook up a cable and drag the darned thing out then ? Maybe I'm not thinking this through enough ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrest Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Makes me wonder even more about why they go to so much trouble to get the darned things our as soon as they can. My guess is the vehicles aren't salvagable/worth much after getting dunked. So why instead of spending so much time and effort cutting the bloody things outta the ice don't they wait until it's a bit easier ? I'm sure there's good reason for some i.e. too far off shore etc, but others - what the heck - wait till the ice is gone, hook up a cable and drag the darned thing out then ? Maybe I'm not thinking this through enough ? My list of reasons would include: -Would it be easier to get a car salvage barge out on the lake? -dragging trucks out of a lake cant be too good for the bottom. -"uh...I can't remember how many trucks went down or where they were" -Why procrastinate? -"who left their truck in the water right in the way of my lower unit?" Edited January 10, 2009 by forrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckdog Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 in Reguards to Lowe Rider's post, Just thought I would point out the below, Occupational Health and Safety Act, I used to do safety security for large box store's pre opens/construction site and the ministry used to fine tune me all the time on safety gear for the guys Protective Clothing, Equipment and Devices 21. (1) A worker shall wear such protective clothing and use such personal protective equipment or devices as are necessary to protect the worker against the hazards to which the worker may be exposed. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 21 (1). (2) A worker’s employer shall require the worker to comply with subsection (1). O. Reg. 213/91, s. 21 (2). (3) A worker required to wear protective clothing or use personal protective equipment or devices shall be adequately instructed and trained in the care and use of the clothing, equipment or device before wearing or using it. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 21 (3). 22. (1) Every worker shall wear protective headwear at all times when on a project. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 22 (1). (2) Protective headwear shall be a safety hat that, (a) consists of a shell and suspension that is adequate to protect a person’s head against impact and against flying or falling small objects; and ( has a shell which can withstand a dielectric strength test at 20,000 volts phase to ground. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 22 (2). 23. (1) Every worker shall wear protective footwear at all times when on a project. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 23 (1). (2) Protective footwear shall be a safety shoe or safety boot, (a) with a box toe that is adequate to protect the wearer’s toes against injury due to impact and is capable of resisting at least 125 joules impact; and ( with a sole or insole that is adequate to protect the wearer’s feet against injury due to puncture and is capable of resisting a penetration load of 1.2 kilonewtons when tested with a DIN standard pin. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 23 (2). 24. A worker shall use protection appropriate in the circumstances when there is a risk of eye injury to the worker. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 24. 25. A worker shall use protection appropriate in the circumstances when there is a risk of injury on a project from contact between the worker’s skin and, (a) a noxious gas, liquid, fume or dust; ( an object that may puncture, cut or abrade the skin; © a hot object, hot liquid or molten metal; or (d) radiant heat. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 25. 26. Sections 26.1 to 26.9 apply where a worker is exposed to any of the following hazards: 1. Falling more than 3 metres. 2. Falling more than 1.2 metres, if the work area is used as a path for a wheelbarrow or similar equipment. 3. Falling into operating machinery. 4. Falling into water or another liquid. 5. Falling into or onto a hazardous substance or object. 6. Falling through an opening on a work surface. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 12; O. Reg. 85/04, s. 4. 26.1 (1) A worker shall be adequately protected by a guardrail system that meets the requirements of subsections 26.3 (2) to (8). O. Reg. 145/00, s. 12. (2) Despite subsection (1), if it is not reasonably possible to install a guardrail system as that subsection requires, a worker shall be adequately protected by at least one of the following methods of fall protection: 1. A travel restraint system that meets the requirements of section 26.4. 2. A fall restricting system that meets the requirements of section 26.5. 3. A fall arrest system, other than a fall restricting system designed for use in wood pole climbing, that meets the requirements of section 26.6. 4. A safety net that meets the requirements of section 26.8. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 12; O. Reg. 85/04, s. 5 (1). (3) The components of any system listed in subsection (2) shall be designed by a professional engineer in accordance with good engineering practice, and shall meet the requirements of any of the following National Standards of Canada standards that are applicable: 1. CAN/CSA-Z259.1-95 (R1999): Safety Belts and Lanyards. 2. CAN/CSA-Z259.2.1-98: Fall Arresters, Vertical Lifelines and Rails. 3. CAN/CSA-Z259.2.2-98: Self-Retracting Devices for Personal Fall-Arrest Systems. 4. CAN/CSA-Z259.2.3-99: Descent Control Devices. 5. CAN/CSA-Z259.10-M90 (R1998): Full Body Harnesses. 6. CAN/CSA-Z259.11-M92 (R1998): Shock Absorbers for Personal Fall-Arrest Systems. 7. CAN/CSA-Z259.14-01: Fall Restrict Equipment for Wood Pole Climbing. 8. CAN/CSA-Z259.12-01: Connecting Components for Personal Fall Arrest Systems (PFAS). O. Reg. 85/04, s. 5 (2). (4) Before any use of a fall arrest system or a safety net by a worker at a project, the worker’s employer shall develop written procedures for rescuing the worker after his or her fall has been arrested. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 12. 26.2 (1) An employer shall ensure that a worker who may use a fall protection system is adequately trained in its use and given adequate oral and written instructions by a competent person. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 13. (2) The employer shall ensure that the person who provides the training and instruction referred to in subsection (1) prepares a written training and instruction record for each worker and signs the record. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 13. (3) The training and instruction record shall include the worker’s name and the dates on which training and instruction took place. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 13. (4) The employer shall make the training and instruction record for each worker available to an inspector on request. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 13. 26.3 (1) Despite paragraph 1 of section 26, a guardrail system that meets the requirements of this section shall be used if a worker has access to the perimeter or an open side of any of the following work surfaces and is exposed to a fall of 2.4 metres or more: 1. A floor, including the floor of a mezzanine or balcony. 2. The surface of a bridge. 3. A roof while formwork is in place. 4. A scaffold platform or other work platform, runway or ramp. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (2) One of the following precautions shall be used to prevent a worker from falling through an opening on a work surface: 1. A guardrail system that meets the requirements of this section. 2. A protective covering that, i. completely covers the opening, ii. is securely fastened, iii. is adequately identified as covering an opening, iv. is made from material adequate to support all loads to which the covering may be subjected, and v. is capable of supporting a live load of at least 2.4 kilonewtons per square metre without exceeding the allowable unit stresses for the material used. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (3) The guardrail system or protective covering required under subsection (1) or (2) may be removed temporarily to perform work in or around the opening if a worker is adequately protected and signs are posted in accordance with subsections 44 (1) and (2). O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (4) The following are the specifications for a guardrail system: 1. It shall have a top rail, an intermediate rail and a toe board. 2. The intermediate rail may be replaced by material that can withstand a point load of 450 newtons applied in a lateral or vertical downward direction. 3. The top of the guardrail system shall be located at least 0.9 metres but not more than 1.1 metres above the surface on which the system is installed. 4. The toe board shall extend from the surface to which the guardrail system is attached to a height of at least 100 millimetres or, if the toe board is made of wood, at least 89 millimetres. 5. If the guardrail system is located at the perimeter of a work surface, the distance between the edge of the surface and the guardrail system shall not be greater than 300 millimetres. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (5) A guardrail system shall be capable of resisting anywhere along the length of the system the following loads when applied separately, without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material used: 1. A point load of 675 newtons applied in a lateral direction to the top rail. 2. A point load of 450 newtons applied in a vertical downward direction to the top rail. 3. A point load of 450 newtons applied in a lateral or vertical downward direction to the intermediate rail, or midway between the top rail and the toe board. 4. A point load of 225 newtons applied in a lateral direction to the toe board. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (6) If the distance between any two adjacent posts of the guardrail system is greater than 2.4 metres, the system shall be capable of resisting the loads specified in subsection (5) increased in proportion to the greater distance between the posts. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (7) The following additional requirements apply to a guardrail system that is made of wood: 1. The wood shall be spruce, pine or fir (S-P-F) timber of construction grade quality or better. 2. The wood shall be free of sharp objects such as splinters and protruding nails. 3. The system shall have posts that are at least 38 millimetres by 89 millimetres, are securely fastened to the surface and are spaced at intervals of not more than 2.4 metres. 4. The top rail and the intermediate rail shall each be at least 38 millimetres by 89 millimetres. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (8) The following additional requirements apply to a guardrail system that is made of wire rope: 1. The top rail and intermediate rail shall be made of wire rope that is at least 10 millimetres in diameter, and the rope shall be kept taut by a turnbuckle. 2. The outward deflection of the top rail and intermediate rail resulting from the loads specified in subsection (5) shall not extend beyond the edge of a work surface. 3. The system shall have vertical separators at intervals of not more than 2.4 metres and horizontal supports at intervals of not more than 9 metres. 4. The intermediate rail shall be located midway between the top rail and the toe board. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. 26.4 (1) A travel restraint system shall consist of a full body harness with adequate attachment points or a safety belt. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (2) The full body harness or safety belt shall be attached by a lifeline or lanyard to a fixed support that meets the requirements of section 26.7. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (3) The travel restraint system shall be inspected by a competent worker before each use. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (4) If a component of the travel restraint system is found to be defective on inspection, the defective component shall immediately be taken out of service. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. 26.5 (1) A fall restricting system that is not designed for use in wood pole climbing shall consist of an assembly of components that is, (a) attached to an independent fixed support that meets the requirements of section 26.7; and ( designed and arranged in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and so that a worker’s free fall distance does not exceed 0.6 metres. O. Reg. 85/04, s. 6. (2) A fall restricting system that is designed for use in wood pole climbing, (a) shall consist of an assembly of components that is designed and arranged in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions; and ( shall not allow pole slippage in excess of the distances set out in the applicable National Standards of Canada standard referred to in subsection 26.1 (3). O. Reg. 85/04, s. 6. (3) A fall restricting system shall be inspected by a competent worker before each use. O. Reg. 85/04, s. 6. (4) If a component of the fall restricting system is found to be defective on inspection, the component shall be taken out of service immediately. O. Reg. 85/04, s. 6. (5) If a worker who is using the fall restricting system falls or slips more than the distance determined under clause (1) ( or (2) (, as the case may be, the system shall be taken out of service immediately and shall not be used again by a worker unless all components of the system have been certified by the manufacturer as being safe for reuse. O. Reg. 85/04, s. 6. 26.6 (1) A fall arrest system shall consist of a full body harness with adequate attachment points and a lanyard equipped with a shock absorber or similar device. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (2) The fall arrest system shall be attached by a lifeline or by the lanyard to an independent fixed support that meets the requirements of section 26.7. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (3) The fall arrest system shall be arranged so that a worker cannot hit the ground or an object or level below the work. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (4) Despite subsection (1), the fall arrest system shall not include a shock absorber if wearing or using one could cause a worker to hit the ground or an object or level below the work. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (5) The fall arrest system shall not subject a worker who falls to a peak fall arrest force greater than 8 kilonewtons. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (6) The fall arrest system shall be inspected by a competent worker before each use. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (7) If a component of the fall arrest system is found to be defective on inspection, the defective component shall immediately be taken out of service. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (8) If a worker who is using the fall arrest system falls, the system shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again by a worker unless all components of the system have been certified by the manufacturer as being safe for re-use. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (9) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply to fall restricting systems designed for use in wood pole climbing. O. Reg. 85/04, s. 7. 26.7 (1) A permanent anchor system shall be used as the fixed support in a fall arrest system, fall restricting system or travel restraint system if the following conditions are met: 1. The anchor system has been installed according to the Building Code. 2. It is safe and practical to use the anchor system as the fixed support. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (2) If the conditions set out in subsection (1) are not met, a temporary fixed support shall be used that meets the following requirements: 1. Subject to paragraph 2, a support used in a fall arrest system shall be capable of supporting a static force of at least 8 kilonewtons without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material used. 2. If a shock absorber is also used in the fall arrest system, the support shall be capable of supporting a static force of at least 6 kilonewtons without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material used. 3. Subject to paragraph 4, a support used in a fall restricting system must be capable of supporting a static force of at least 6 kilonewtons without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material used. 4. Paragraph 3 does not apply to a support that is used in accordance with the manufacturer’s written instructions and is adequate to protect a worker. 5. A support used in a travel restraint system shall be capable of supporting a static force of at least 2 kilonewtons without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material used. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (3) Despite the requirements listed in subsection (2), the support capacity of a temporary fixed support used in a fall protection system may be determined by dynamic testing in accordance with good engineering practice to ensure that the temporary fixed support has adequate capacity to arrest a worker’s fall. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (4) A fixed support shall not have any sharp edges that could cut, chafe or abrade the connection between it and another component of the system. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to fall restricting systems designed for use in wood pole climbing. O. Reg. 85/04, s. 8. 26.8 (1) A safety net shall be designed, tested and installed in accordance with ANSI Standard 10.11-1989, Personnel and Debris Nets for Construction and Demolition Operations. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (2) The safety net shall be installed by a competent worker. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (3) A professional engineer or a competent person under the engineer’s supervision shall inspect and test the installation of the safety net before it is put in service. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (4) The engineer shall document the inspection and testing of the safety net. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14; O. Reg. 85/04, s. 9. (5) A copy of the document shall be kept at the project while the safety net is in service. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. 26.9 (1) This section applies to a lanyard or lifeline that is part of a travel restraint system or a fall arrest system. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (2) The following requirements apply to a lanyard or a lifeline: 1. It shall not be used in such a way that it is likely to be cut, chafed or abraded. 2. It shall not be subjected to extreme temperature, flame, abrasive or corrosive materials or other hazards that may damage it. 3. The free end of the lanyard or lifeline shall be kept clear of equipment and machinery. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (3) Only one person at a time may use a lanyard. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (4) The connecting ends of a lanyard shall be wrapped around a protective thimble and securely fastened with a swaged fitting or eye splice supplied by the manufacturer of the lanyard. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (5) A horizontal or vertical lifeline shall be kept free from splices or knots, except knots used to connect it to a fixed support. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (6) Only one person at a time may use a vertical lifeline. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (7) A vertical lifeline shall, (a) extend to the ground; or ( have a positive stop that prevents the rope grab or other similar device from running off the end of the lifeline. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. (8) The following requirements apply to a horizontal lifeline system: 1. It shall be designed by a professional engineer in accordance with good engineering practice. 2. The design may be a standard design or a custom design. 3. The design shall, i. show the arrangement of the system including the anchorage or fixed support system, ii. indicate the components used, iii. state the number of workers that can safely be attached to it, iv. set out instructions for installation or erection, and v. show the design loads for the system. 4. The system shall be installed or erected, and maintained, in accordance with the professional engineer’s design. 5. Before each use, the system shall be inspected by a professional engineer or a competent worker designated by a supervisor. 6. The constructor shall keep the design at the project while the system is in use. O. Reg. 145/00, s. 14. 26.10, 26.11 Revoked: O. Reg. 85/04, s. 10. 27. (1) A worker who may drown shall wear a lifejacket. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 27 (1). (2) If a worker may drown at a project, (a) at least two workers trained to perform rescue operations shall be available to perform rescue operations; ( rescue equipment shall be provided in a suitable location on or near the project; and © all workers on the project shall be advised of the rescue procedures to be followed and their role, if any, in carrying out a rescue. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 27 (2). (3) The rescue equipment shall include, (a) a seaworthy boat equipped with a ring buoy attached to fifteen metres of polypropylene rope that is 9.5 millimetres in diameter, a boat hook and, for every person required for a rescue operation using the boat, a lifejacket; ( if there is a current in the water, a line extending across the water with floating objects attached to it that are capable of providing support for a person in the water; and © an alarm system capable of warning a worker of the necessity of carrying out a rescue operation. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 27 (3). (4) The boat shall be power-driven if the water is likely to be rough or swift. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 27 (4). (5) The alarm system shall be activated when a rescue operation is necessary. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 27 (5). (6) In this section, “lifejacket” means a personal flotation device that provides buoyancy adequate to keep a worker’s head above water, face up, without effort by the worker. O. Reg. 213/91, s. 27 (6). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outllaw Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 wow. just leave the kia for structure... good place for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lew Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Unfortunately, people with common sense are getting screwed on the job because of stupid people. ++++++++ Another example is tying off with a harness at all times on motor lifts. Why? Cause some moron climbed on the railing when the thing didn't reach and fell to serious injury or death, must have left the common sense at home. I agree with you 100% Lowe Rider and am not arguing with you at all, inact I've said the same thing many times, that we're often totally overwhelmed with saftey rules in the workplace, infact often to the point where it would be nearly impossible to do our jobs succesfully if we followed all the rules to the letter. I spent 32 years as a fireman here in Toronto and we had saftey rules & regs coming out our ying yang, many of them good, but others totally inappropriate for that type of work. You get to the scene of the emergency, get in and then out...hopefully...the best way you can and often have to break every rule in the book to do what's necessary. I was on the 1st arriving truck at a house fire one night and was met by a hysterical woman on the sidewalk who informed us her husband was still upstairs. I made a quick judgement call, ran upstairs alone without an airmask on, grabbed the guy and dragged him outside, and was then chastized by the boss for not putting on a mask. I had alot of experience on the job and knew what I was doing, yet because I broke "a safety rule" I was in the wrong according to those in charge. Trouble was, the guy who chastized me arrived 1/2 and hour after the fact and wasn't even there to know 1st hand the reason for what was done. What I did is nothing unusual, infact it happens every day of the year, yet it's considered wrong because it goes against the writen "rule" When I went on the job more than 40 years ago, there were far less rules, yet we still got the job done, and now I think workers are aften over burdened by un-necessary rules. I remember a time when garbage men were required to wear hard hats because thy may fall and hit their head on the sidewalk. Once they explained that the mayor could also fall in his office and hit his head on the floor, the rule was recinded. My son was an iron worker for 20 years and worked the high steel all over the world, including 2 years in Shanghai and Bejing China where he was foreman on a job erecting 2 high office towers. No matter where or when they worked, and no matter how high the job, they nearly always clipped on their saftey harnesses to whatever they could, but from talking to my son many many times about his job over the years, it's understandable that often, because of circumstances, they just had to leave the harness off to get from one spot to another. I knew alot of his co-workers and they all said the same thing. Harnesses are obviously a very important part of their gear, but often the job required them to be left off. Unfortunately, on December 13th, 2004, my son was working on the high steel and had to remove his harness to move from one spot to another, and unfortunately, that was the time something terrible, and to this day unknown happened and he fell to his death. Every iron worker I talked to said they'd done the exact same thing 1000's of times. I didn't mean to ramble on like this, but I guess my point is that saftey rules & regs are OK most of the time, but due to so many different circumstances in the the daily grind of those of us doing dangerous work, the rules have to be discarded or circumvented, and most times we can get away with it, but often it backfires and people die. Again Lowe Rider, I'm agreeing with your post 100%, saftey rules are both good and necessary, as long as they don't go over board with them. Edited January 10, 2009 by lew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Someday when I get bored to DEATH and have nothing else to do I MIGHT read that safety post but I really doubt it. Edited January 10, 2009 by Billy Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowe Rider Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I agree with you 100% Lowe Rider and am not arguing with you at all, inact I've said the same thing many times, that we're often totally overwhelmed with saftey rules in the workplace, infact often to the point where it would be nearly impossible to do our jobs succesfully if we followed all the rules to the letter. I spent 32 years as a fireman here in Toronto and we had saftey rules & regs coming out our ying yang, many of them good, but others totally inappropriate for that type of work. You get to the scene of the emergency, get in and then out...hopefully...the best way you can and often have to break every rule in the book to do what's necessary. I was on the 1st arriving truck at a house fire one night and was met by a hysterical woman on the sidewalk who informed us her husband was still upstairs. I made a quick judgement call, ran upstairs alone without an airmask on, grabbed the guy and dragged him outside, and was then chastized by the boss for not putting on a mask. I had alot of experience on the job and knew what I was doing, yet because I broke "a safety rule" I was in the wrong according to those in charge. Trouble was, the guy who chastized me arrived 1/2 and hour after the fact and wasn't even there to know 1st hand the reason for what was done. What I did is nothing unusual, infact it happens every day of the year, yet it's considered wrong because it goes against the writen "rule" When I went on the job more than 40 years ago, there were far less rules, yet we still got the job done, and now I think workers are aften over burdened by un-necessary rules. I remember a time when garbage men were required to wear hard hats because thy may fall and hit their head on the sidewalk. Once they explained that the mayor could also fall in his office and hit his head on the floor, the rule was recinded. My son was an iron worker for 20 years and worked the high steel all over the world, including 2 years in Shanghai and Bejing China where he was foreman on a job erecting 2 high office towers. No matter where or when they worked, and no matter how high the job, they nearly always clipped on their saftey harnesses to whatever they could, but from talking to my son many many times about his job over the years, it's understandable that often, because of circumstances, they just had to leave the harness off to get from one spot to another. I knew alot of his co-workers and they all said the same thing. Harnesses are obviously a very important part of their gear, but often the job required them to be left off. Unfortunately, on December 13th, 2004, my son was working on the high steel and had to remove his harness to move from one spot to another, and unfortunately, that was the time something terrible, and to this day unknown happened and he fell to his death. Every iron worker I talked to said they'd done the exact same thing 1000's of times. I didn't mean to ramble on like this, but I guess my point is that saftey rules & regs are OK most of the time, but due to so many different circumstances in the the daily grind of those of us doing dangerous work, the rules have to be discarded or circumvented, and most times we can get away with it, but often it backfires and people die. Again Lowe Rider, I'm agreeing with your post 100%, saftey rules are both good and necessary, as long as they don't go over board with them. I would just like to say Thank you Lew for your years of service doing a job I would never be able to do. I have two friends who are Metro Police and my dad's good friend (ret) who was in the Fire dept in North Bay, I have heard some of the stories good and bad about your job and theirs. I know I couldn't do it but I'm grateful there are people like you and my friends who can. I know safety regs are there for a reason and peoples lives depend on them but it just seems like they are getting so silly with some of them these days. I'm sorry to hear about your son, sounds like he made his father proud. Those Steelworkers are a hardy bunch and they amaze me on any project I've ever been on. Then again I get nervous on a 10 ft ladder . To the OP sorry for screwing up your thread. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now