Comment from john woodward
Time August 13, 2009 at 7:08 am

Most of the “Demolition gone wrong” videos on the internet have a common theme and that is the buildings are almost always undermined by machines that are not big enough to reach the top of the structure and the undermining causes the collapse. When will people learn that you need the right company, with trained competent staff using the correct bit of kit to do demolition correctly and safely. This guy was VERY lucky indeed, but I bet he won’t learn from it as the next job that he cannot reach will be undercut in the same way. Also the footage is from the USA where they have a completetly different take on demolition to us in the UK.

Comment from admin
Time August 13, 2009 at 8:49 am

I agree with all that you say John. What I find disappointing, however, is the public’s seemingly insatiable appetite for this kind of stuff. I added two new videos to this site yesterday: one was a high class, well-shot film from an operator’s eye view showing demolition as it should be done; the other was this cheap “demolition gone awry” footage. And the statistics already prove that the latter is more popular, at least with the public.
Not only does this say much about society, I think it also says a great deal about the public perception of the demolition business; a business that – as far as Joe Public is concerned – blows stuff up and is stupid enough to have accidents like this.
As someone who tries to represent all that is good about the demolition business, but who also makes a living from attracting visitors (and, therefore, advertisers) to this website, I find myself torn and am currently leaning towards banning these “demolition gone wrong” videos from this website, even though it will impact upon our traffic levels.
What do our other readers think?

Comment from Jack westwood
Time August 13, 2009 at 9:14 am

I assume he ok, Thank goodness. Mark, I think you should keep showing these videos to help get acroos the point John was making. there are loads of videos of the machine Undercutting the Building like ” The death of the High reach” and if operators read this website wich the almost certainly do it will help get it into there heads what can go wrong, Like a health and saftery video.

Comment from admin
Time August 13, 2009 at 9:19 am

Avery good point Jack, and one that we will take on board.
It will be interesting to see what other readers have to say on the subject.

Comment from Oliver James
Time August 13, 2009 at 9:52 am

I am inclined to agree with Jack. These videos, while unpleasant to watch, serve as a reminder of the poentil dangers of our business.
Look at them as our own version of those hard-hitting “don’t drink and drive” ads they put on TV each Christmas, and hope that they serve as a deterrent.

Comment from Jack westwood
Time August 13, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Very Good point Oliver. And videos that are rather sick are used for Training people on forklifts for example.

Comment from Mike O’Neill Sr.
Time August 26, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Some of you have it right. These are great training videos for employees who have less then 4,000 hours (2 years- 4 years depending on weather conditions) on equipment.
And some are examples are shown in MSHA and OSHA training classes I have attended.

An operator is as good as the training he/she gets. It is that simple.
And sometimes bonuses and job security plays a critical role. Most of the time profits take preference over safety. That is why on demolition sites everyone signs off on procedures used.

I am from the fluid power industry and take care of the construction, mining, transportation and manufacturing industries here in PA, NJ, Del, MD.
I see first hand what training does for employees. We hold safety meeting onsite for companies; on the steps for hydraulic repair and safety training.
We also have to attended other safety training classes from MSHA and OSHA for many of my customers since it is a requirement for vendors attend these if they go on-site.

As you see in the video above the operator / equipment was: 1. The wrong equipment for the demolition path used. 2. Training was not setup for the site safety manager, operator or employees. 3. The state that approved this method of demolition is also at fault. There is no way this would be excepted by northeast Department building and inspection office.
As for the safety of the Volvo equipment used in this example. This comes from companies using equipment where they do not belong. All equipment manufactures have to follow the government guidelines. Cage safety (operator compartment) caused by many deaths has become one of the safest places on a construction site. These are built to withstand normal operating forces. And if you try to change it at all you have to follow thousands of guidelines. Try to mount a backup lighting system(Not really just a stupid example) on a Volvo, CAT, Kobelco, etc; you can not do it as it changes the stress points. You can not change the operators cab in any way or form since they are built through strict government guidelines.
Bottom line you need to post the government guidelines for construction companies to read or refresh their past training. I have seen hundreds of accidents due to improper training for employees. When we get called in for training a company on hydraulic safety; it is due to an accident. It is important for companies to hold regular training for employees and have the managers attend, since 95% of the accidents are due to their method of leading.
And it is not a cut on managers, they get the bonus if the job is done on-time or B4. And this is where the problems occur, they lead their staff to do things unsafe. WHY? Training. Bottom-line…..

Comment from admin
Time August 26, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Many thanks for your excellent comments Mike; you make some excellent points.
As a Brit who has spent the past 20+ years writing about ever-changing training regimes and legislation, I know the hoops that UK contractors are forced to jump through in order to carry out even the most mundane demolition work. And the result has been a steep and lasting decline in site accidents and fatalities. I am not marking the UK model as the panacea here. But the facts speak for themselves – More training and more legislation and Government intervention equals less accidents.