Health & Safety at exhibitions

[Geoff Endacott]

If the exhibition is insured through a scheme such as that operated by Magnet, public liability cover is included. Exhibitors do not have to worry. (Most major shows will have such cover in place.)

 

If the exhibition is not insured through such a scheme and the organisers expect you to be responsible for public liabilty cover my advice is simple - don't go!

 

Geoff Endacott

[t-b-g]

If something happens and the incident is down to your negligence then whether or not you foresaw this in a risk assessment is irrelevant in terms of your liability. As in the example I gave earlier if you foresee the risk in the assessment and it still happens that is tantamount to an admission that you were aware of the risk did not take sufficient care to prevent it. I suspect the reason why the insurance companies might want risk assessments is so that they can deny liability and put it back on the individual not preventing the risk they identified from happening.

 

If you feel that your layout has the potential to inflict two million pounds worth of injury on somebody then take out insurance. It is a while since I went to a model railway exhibition but I don't recall ever feeling in danger from any of the exhibits at a show. Do you feel unsafe having the layout in your house? So long as you don't use the metal crowd barriers to conduct the mains power to the transformer and don't put the working sawmill built from an old Black and Decker table saw in front of the push button to make Thomas pull Annie and Clarabell out of the tunnel you don't have anthing to worry about.

 

Funny you should say that! I am currently (that is not a bad electrical pun!) working on the restoration of a rather old layout. Your examples above are not that ridiculous......... There is certainly 240v and 12v wiring mixed together under the boards, bare mains wire terminals on transformers and a few other things in the "I wouldn't do it like that" category. It won't go near any electricity until it is sorted out!

 

As far as I am concerned, the chances of my layouts causing anybody any harm are as near nil as makes no difference. Mind you, it can be fatal getting a splinter and blood poisoning............

[Barry O]

I may have missed something here but can I make an observation/suggestion or two?

 

1 A risk assessment in itself must be:

simple to understand

easy to fill in

 

AND need a simple set of "Useful Hints and Tips" so that anyone can fill it in

 

If this isn't the case its of no use to anyone.

 

2 Layouts should be covered by a simple "POWRA" - Point of Work Risk Assessment - at work these are in the form of a double sided A6 tick list and space for any comments. Major Risks such as fire/PAT etc should be covered by the Organisers own Risk Documentation and Advice to exhibitors.

 

The whole idea of a Risk Assessment is to make sure that people (organisers, staff, exhibitors and the visiting public) are not subject to any major risk.

 

Looking at 1 I would struggle to fill in a double sided A4 for a layout unless I went into the realms of fantasy - most risks have been mentioned here - weight ( baseboards, stock, backscenes, lights etc), topple (layout, Lights, chairs ), electrical ( connection to hall connection and protection),trapping of fingers etc in moving parts (such as cassette/rotary fiddleyards) and general slips, trips and falls, and I think these could be just as easy to have a tick list POWRA to do the job - and its so simple its a ticklist.

 

The introduction of this approach has saved a lot of injuries within what is quite a hostile work environment so is it worthwhile.

 

Remember that the venues/ organisers and their insurers are the ones who decry what should be provided - perhaps if they had to pay for our training in filling in some of the weird and wonderful Risk Assessments I have had to deal with they would quickly think again.

 

The only other point I would make is with regard to the width of aisles - in Leeds the Fire Brigade in the 1970s told us a minimum of NINE feet - and if only some shows could manage this I might return to them!

[Talltim]

From a (insurance) liability point of view, are you better off having identified a risk or not having identified a risk if that risk turns into actualy occurence?

e.g

Situation There is a slight possibilty that the incorrect number of rivets on the tender of your 28XX will cause a previously undiagnosed heart condition of a rivet counter to flare up, causing a heart attack.

A; you identify the risk, but consider the possibility of it causing an issue so slight that you do not correct the rivet numbers. A heart attack ensures and the insurance company for the venue/organisers decide that you are liable as you have identified the risk and not done anything to prevent it.

B: you don't even think of that particular risk. A heart attack ensures and the insurance company for the venue/organisers decide that you are liable as you haven't identified the risk.

[Barry O]

From a (insurance) liability point of view, are you better off having identified a risk or not having identified a risk if that risk turns into actualy occurence?

e.g

Situation There is a slight possibilty that the incorrect number of rivets on the tender of your 28XX will cause a previously undiagnosed heart condition of a rivet counter to flare up, causing a heart attack.

A; you identify the risk, but consider the possibility of it causing an issue so slight that you do not correct the rivet numbers. A heart attack ensures and the insurance company for the venue/organisers decide that you are liable as you have identified the risk and not done anything to prevent it.

B: you don't even think of that particular risk. A heart attack ensures and the insurance company for the venue/organisers decide that you are liable as you haven't identified the risk.

 

PI

[Andy Y]

Tim, that's just getting very silly (even if it is to make a point). I did post earlier in the topic about keeping things on track.

[Talltim]

Silly example yes, but it is the question the OP is asking. The silly risk could easily be replaced with a more sensible one such as the layout falling overon someone. He is not asking how to do an RA. He is not asking if he should need to do an RA.He is not asking if it is the organisers responsibilty. He is not asking whether he falls under the Heath and Safety at Work act. He is not asking if RAs are a good thing or a waste of time.

He is asking if by completing (or not) an RA he is making himself more liable in the eyes of an insurance company (and or the law? not certain if he means the law) if an incident were to happen

[Happy Hippo]

The original Heath and Safety at Work act was designed for the protection of workers in the heavy industries such as shipbuilding engineering plants and the steel making and coal industries.

 

It's influence has spread into everyday life as the general population abdicate their personal responsibility for their own safety and well being in favour of litigation.

 

It is something we are now having to live with.

 

As a result, we are required to carry out paper exercises such as risk assessments in order to create evidence that we have considered the risks involved and the possible consequences of our decisions and actions.

 

If you breathe and are capable of moving, then you will invariably spend quite a large proportion of your waking hours making mental risk assessments without ever realising you are doing them.

 

I always hesitate to say, use your common sense, because I have noticed that in some individuals, it is somewhat lacking.

 

In reply to the OPs question about liability because you have a written RA.:

 

I asked a friend who is an insurance assessor, and his reply was that a written risk assessment would weigh heavily in your favour because it is evidence that you have thought through the potential risks, and taken steps to reduce them.

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

Edited for spelling

[Guest Natalie Graham]

 

The whole idea of a Risk Assessment is to make sure that people (organisers, staff, exhibitors and the visiting public) are not subject to any major risk.

 

my emphasis

 

Yes, major risk, trapping your finger in the fiddle yard or knocking your chair over is not a major risk. At the level of the whole exhibition there may well be a need for a risk assessment but to expect each layout owner to carry out individual written risk assessments for their layouts is pointless beaurocracy and part of the spread of health and safety paranoia into our lives that Richard (Happy Hippo) describes.

[jonhall]

 

I asked a friend who is an insurance assessor, and his reply was that a written risk assessment would weigh heavily in your favour because it is evidence that you have thought through the potential risks, and taken steps to reduce them.

 

....provided you have actually implemented those steps ... Identifying the risk, and defining the mitigation, but not actually doing what you say could be a very unhappy experience in the long run.

 

Jon

[jonhall]

I fell off my push bike earlier in the year and hurt my shoulder, I went to A&E for an X-ray - nothing broken but I was told rest for a few days. After a week I went to my GP and told him I was still in pain. He refered me to hospital for an ultrasound - the NHS would have taken 4 weeks, so I went back and pointed out that I had PPP from work, I went private and was seen the next day (£211) I then had a further ultrasound (another £211) and 10 sesions of physiotherapy ( I never saw the bill for that) and at one point I was going to be refered to have an MRI (I understand that costs thousands?? ).

 

SO a medical bill of a few thousand pounds is pretty easy to run up (not to mention that I was off work for 6 weeks), fortunately I only had to pay the £100 excess, but as part of the routine paperwork I was asked to fill in was a form for me to identify if there was a third party who the insurers could recover their expenses from...

 

If I'd fallen over your extension lead that was a trip hazard, rather than falling off a bike...would you fancy an insurance company chasing you for several thousand pounds??

 

A risk assessment on its own won't prevent the accident, particularly if you fill it out months before the show, and don't refer to it before, during or after seting up your layout, but if used properly it can help minimise the hazards that you, the public, your fellow exhibitors, and the venues own staff are exposed to, and hopefully reduce the likelyhood of a problem which will spoil someones day.

 

Jon

Feeling much better now

[298]

I think refusing to do your own RA when asked is a bit like being a party pooper, by not getting into the spirit of the request by thinking about your own actions. I'd love to know what an exhibition manager would do if a large layout turned up on a friday afternoon with eight operators all saying "We're not doing one of those, Matey...", if it's as viewed as serious as refusing to have your equipment PA tested then I guess they'd be a space in the hall.

 

In actual fact, I still maintain we're pretty much self regulating. I've seen plenty of whinges about punters with rucksacks, but despite nothing official, the message seems to be getting through.

[The Stationmaster]

It looks like those herrings are in danger of turning into full grown cod judging by some posts which have simply gone back over the same old ground and ignored everything that has been explained - again!

 

The whole purpose of a risk assessment is to do exactly what it says - assess risk, on the basis usually of likelihood, frequency, consequences and impact. Carrying out the RA produces the answers and then takes account of mitigations which are put there to minimise the risk and it doesn't matter what we call those risks in this thread because we are not doing the RA on the specific layout so we can't know what the results will be.

 

Just over a year ago I gave some help to a voluntary organisation, as a volunteer, helping a sufferer from Parkinson's Disease create a small layout. Before I could start the Area Organiser explained that an RA was needed and she was sorry about the terrible imposition but we had to sit down and it might take about 15 minutes or more. I looked at and filled in the lot in no longer than it took me to write it down - covering everything from use of power tools to old timber with splinters to mains electrics to lifting sections of board and so on plus all the consequences varying from broken toes to fatal electrocution plus all the mitigations and the ALARP results and all categorised using the categories on a form I'd never seen before. It is not an onerous task using a properly designed form and commonsense and the form plus what you enter on it will decide whether anything is a 'major risk' (whatever that might be or whatever anyone on here might say).

 

I think, in some way or another all the original questions have been answered but it is really up to t-b-g to decide if has enough real advice and information to outweigh the red herrings and irrelevancies which, as is so often the case, have been thrown into a thread talking about these sorts of issues.

[JeremyC]

Thinking about this topic and speaking as someone who works every day with risk assessments [in my case under marine regulatiions, rather than the H&S executive] I have some trouble with the idea that layouts need individual RAs. To my mind the risks [such as they are] are generic and could be covered by a standard RA. Thinking back to the last exhibition I attended the only exception that comes to mind would be where live steam models are concerned, but within themselves their risks are generic and the same arguement could apply, though passenger carrying stuff would be, I'd think, a different ball game. Risk assessments are a valuable tool, it's people trying to be exotic or using them as an excuse to ban things that's got them a bad reputation. In my view the KIS [Keep it simple] principle or rather the keep it realistic principle needs to be applied.

 

Jeremy

[t-b-g]

Does my layout have electricity? Yes it does, it has a mains supply to a transformer, which converts it to a low voltage which is what goes to the motors in the little trains. Is there a risk? Of course there is if anybody makes contact with any bare wire on the mains side of the transformer. How will I manage the risk? I will make sure that all the metal bits of wire are enclosed in plastic stuff called insulation. I will make sure that there are no bare bits of mains wire showing and I promise to keep the wire neat and tidy so that people don't fall over it. I have no idea how the wire gets to the layout because I will just plug my transformer into whatever is provided at the show.

 

Do I have any chemicals? I have a small amount of solvent and some glue. Are they a risk? Yes if anybody sniffs/drinks/swallows them. How will I manage the risk. I will keep them in little bottles and tubes and the bottles shall have tops that screw on nice and tightly and the tubes shall have lids. The bottles will be kept in my toolbox which will live in a dark corner under the layout. I will only get them out if I really need to and I will put them away again as soon as I have finished using them. anybody wanting to drink them will take ages finding them and will probably be spotted grovelling under the layout in plenty of time.

 

Do I have any sharp objects? Apart from a rapier like wit I have a couple of modelling knives, which could do with being sharper. They live in the toolbox a bit like the chemicals. There is a piercing saw in the toolbox but as somebody would have to get a blade out of packet, fit it to the frame and then cut themselves, it is unlikely that will happen by accident. One of my uncoupling hooks has a sharp point but it is the only one I am any good with so it stays. It will be out on the layout all weekend. I once got it caught in my jumper but it hasn't hurt anybody yet. If that is a problem, let me know and I will not bother coming because without uncoupling the layout would be very boring to operate.

 

Are there any other hazards? Some of the operators can be quite aggresive if they don't get lots of tea. There may be others that I haven't thought of but as I haven't thought of them I don't know what they are but if you can think of any or want to check my layout for yourself, please feel free to do so.

 

I feel much safer now! However have I survived all this time without doing this? All done! It wasn't difficult after all......

 

Sorry but I couldn't resist! This is my last post on the thread (and possibly on RMWeb if I get kicked off!)

 

I just remembered, I picked up a loco once and a sandpipe stuck in my finger..... ouch, that hurt!

[Penlan]

So, have we moved on much further than post #2 and their 13 page Guidance form

provided at http://www.island-pu...0Assessment.pdf ?

 

Today I received a completed 6 page RA Pro-Forma from our Scaffolding Contractors for works in the Harbour.

Again all comon sense, BTW the least/lowest risk is described as 'Trivial'.

There is mention that the Main Contractor has responsibilities too, like clear access' etc.,

- we would be the main Contractor's (The Harbour Lights Committee).

[Neil]

I wonder if the frustration at herrings and invisible ink along with the seemingly cyclical nature of this topic doesn't indicate anything more complex than risk assessments have the ability to appear rather differently depending on where you look at them from. If you work in engineering you'll see something rather different than a social worker gets to see, even though the principle behind them remains the same. Unions and managers will have differing experiences and this all assumes that the purpose remains true to the aim of protecting people; and in my experience this hasn't always been the case. There is a huge difference between the world of work and taking your layout to an exhibition; will a risk assessment keep you safer? I don't know but i bet few bother to assess the dangers of driving to the exhibition, statistically the time of highest risk with the more serious potential outcome.

[The Stationmaster]

I wonder if the frustration at herrings and invisible ink along with the seemingly cyclical nature of this topic doesn't indicate anything more complex than risk assessments have the ability to appear rather differently depending on where you look at them from. If you work in engineering you'll see something rather different than a social worker gets to see, even though the principle behind them remains the same. Unions and managers will have differing experiences and this all assumes that the purpose remains true to the aim of protecting people; and in my experience this hasn't always been the case. There is a huge difference between the world of work and taking your layout to an exhibition; will a risk assessment keep you safer? I don't know but i bet few bother to assess the dangers of driving to the exhibition, statistically the time of highest risk with the more serious potential outcome.

I didn't intend to post any more but having mentioned red herrings I will simply say that that mainly relates to posting total irrelevancies such as (misunderstood) items on the HSE website and who has the responsibility to ask for an RA. Compiling them is - I would agree - something which might be daunting to those who've never bothered to look at a properly formatted one but I can see no point whatsoever in going on about supposed 'risks' as 'major' (or otherwise) when you haven't got a clue about the way an RA is written or prepared.

[Mod5]

This is going nowhere other than around in circles with repetition of posts and the usual making mountains out of molehills approach. It had the makings of a common sense thread and many could have learnt from some simple guidelines that the op was requesting.

 

As ever it has come to a stage where we lock it or it goes around again. So locked it is. Pity really.