22nd August 2005, 01:54 PM
I am not - as troll suggests - trying to belittle injuries, accidents or fatalities by 'reducing' them to statistics, simply trying to get things in perspective. I agree that not all employed in the construction industry are on site (but then not all archaeologists are on site either - one major contributor to injuries in archaeology in my experience is moving things around in stores without appropriate manual handling training or aids).
Thanks for putting the poll up, I am not sure if it will help but at least we might get a measure of what is happening.
I agree with troll and others that the categories are rather broad and sweeping, but it was meant as a suggestion not a hard and fast rule. Perhaps as more information comes in then we can have more refinement. And yes, statistics are open to abuse, but - as 1man1desk points out - it is a start in being able to judge if things have improved or not.
I think we can all take on board the invisible man's point that the usefulness of a risk assessment is dependent on the amount of thought that went into it, it should never be a blind carbon-copy of the previous one.
Thanks for putting the poll up, I am not sure if it will help but at least we might get a measure of what is happening.
I agree with troll and others that the categories are rather broad and sweeping, but it was meant as a suggestion not a hard and fast rule. Perhaps as more information comes in then we can have more refinement. And yes, statistics are open to abuse, but - as 1man1desk points out - it is a start in being able to judge if things have improved or not.
I think we can all take on board the invisible man's point that the usefulness of a risk assessment is dependent on the amount of thought that went into it, it should never be a blind carbon-copy of the previous one.