Re: Another RSA worker killed

[keithm@happy.dca.gov.au (Dave Malcolm)]

In article <37A4C705.94013A6E@fl.net.au> Wallabz <wallaby@fl.net.au> writes:
>Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 08:15:33 +1000
>From: Wallabz <wallaby@fl.net.au>
>Subject: Re: Another RSA worker killed

>Hiyas,

>Aren't we forgetting that nobody has mentioned the exact circumstances
>of this fatality?

>This thread hasn't really moved away from the initial 'blame' on the
>worker who was killed, then on to a number of assumptions about
>irresponsible track workers.

>It is within the rules for a person to be walking about on the tracks
>without a lookout, even bending, inspecting and using "small test
>intruments".

SWU 910,a. 
"When employees are working on or about the line and can safely look out for 
themselves, no other protection is required."
The unit then goes on to say (further down th page):
"When employees working on or about the line become aware of the approach of a 
train, they must move with any equipment to a safe place."

Dave Malcolm

>So if this person was a track walker, he was probably not disobeying any
>safety rules.  The rule he may have disobeyed is the one which says that
>you are not permitted to obstruct a train.

>Nobody here seems to know whether the guy tripped and fell or whether he
>simply walked into the path of a moving train.

>How many of you have ever stepped out onto the road as a pedestrian
>without having checked to see if it was safe first?

>I've walked on train tracks in a lot of places in the Sydney Metro, most
>of them I would say are quite dangerous, and there are more than a few
>places where it is extremely dangerous to walk without a lookout or
>more. 

>I've had a couple of very near misses, because you get caught up in
>fixing whatever it is you're out there to do.  And I would say that
>other workers would have usually considered me especially careful and
>paranoid.  So I guess people who might be less careful than me may be
>*more* likely to have near misses.

>Bill wrote:
>> The point about hi-visibility vests is a good one. In my opinion
>> they have never been of much use down the track, for exactly the
>> reason you say: the train cannot swerve, or brake suddenly. OK, so

>You see him earlier, and you have the opportunity to sound your horn a
>little earlier.  It seems to me that for whatever reason, drivers are
>not fond of the horn, because they rarely sound it.


>> I used to be opposed to Police prosecutions for safety violations,
>> but as I get older and more cynical, I wonder if the threat of
>> fines and jail is the only way to sharpen attention to need to
>> have safe workplaces.

>Workcover is entitled to fine and the employer is certainly entitled to
>discipline workers for failing to follow the safety rules.


>> And to any track worker who is reading this: Hopping on and off
>> the track without protection is a bloody stupid practice!

>As I said above, the rules state that certain types of work do not
>require any special protection besides the use of one's own eyes and
>ears.  The person in charge of the work is not going to provide more
>protection than the rules require if that means the work will not get
>done.  So the worker who has minimal protection and is working within
>the rules has no ability to demand more protection than is required
>under the rules.

> 
>> Question: is any union interested in safety at present, or have
>> the empllyers got the upper hand?

>Matter of opinion.  I suppose the unions(at least the unions say this)
>are fighting on so many fronts, that their resources are stretched. 
>Don't the people in the workplace have a similar responsibility to
>protect themselves?

>In any case, to walk along the track for visual inspection or similar is
>not inherently unsafe.  Of course, any one doing so needs to keep a good
>lookout and not let themselves be distracted.  To change the rules so
>that any kind of work required excessive protection(flagmen, detonators
>or even possession) would cause track work to be slowed down a lot.