Should we have a high reach register…?
Would a high reach excavator register help prevent future accidents?
Under normal circumstances, we try to keep our posts here on Demolition News and those on Construction Equipment’s Demolition Digest totally separate; the readerships of the two are usually very different, and while Demolition News aims at a global market, Demolition Digest is aimed squarely at readers in North America. However, we have just posted a new item on Demolition Digest that we believe merits wider discussion.
As the UK’s Health and Safety Executive rolls out its Tower Crane Register programme, we’re asking whether the demolition industry needs a similar, possibly self-policed system to monitor the sale, deployment, maintenance and inspection for high and ultra high reach demolition excavators.
You can read the full article and add your comments there or in the comments area below.
Posted: December 4th, 2009 under General.
Comments
Comment from Geert-Yke
Time December 7, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The website http://www.highreachdemolition.com shows nearly all companies. In fact thats the first High Reach register and it exist a couple of years.
Comment from admin
Time December 7, 2009 at 4:56 pm
That is an interesting and useful website but, unliess I am missing something, this site DOES NOT maintain the types of records required under the Tower Crane Register.
One of the key requirements of the Tower Crane Register is regular inspection of the machines and, if there were to be a High Reach Register, I would certainly hope that this would be replicated.
Comment from john woodward
Time December 7, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Mark,
I feel that Terry has hit the nail firmly on the head and I agree that we do not need a register. From my experience the companies who can afford high reach machines are not the type to operate them on a shoestring as these machines are not cheap to run and move around. They also attract and train quality operators for the machines as they cannot afford for them to be abused. A register of machines would show who owned what and if they were in test but it wouldn’t remove the risk of an accident. Most of the demolition gone wrong that you feature are poor operators using a mchine incorrectly and no register will prevent that.
Comment from mick saunders
Time December 9, 2009 at 7:39 pm
i noticed that as usual John Woodward made a very important point on this subject and that it is the training of the drivers and the operaters of these machines that is the main thing.I watch with great interest when a driver gets into a HR or a UHR machine in fact i watch them in a one ton machine as well,and i think that most of the drivers i see now adays need to go back to the classroom,i believe that some sort of register is needed but not as for tower cranes.It is very rare to see an operator of a tower crane slew round and crash in to things but i have seen it happen many times with a high reach,people may have a quick glance at the arm but thats it and nothing is ever written down so that say in a few months after the knock something may go wrong,God forbid.
But i do notice that all the videos that you put on here are from abroad ie when you say you will know what is about to happen 10 seconds into the film.Tower cranes are put in place and are looked at by all and sundry but who really looks them over closely,and as was said in your article, that has only started to happen after the run of accidents.Machines are moved about and then atleast there is a chance that some one will see a fault and rectify it,if you want a register then make it compulsory for every machine to carry one with it and put any knocks or bangs in it at least a new driver can then see what he is about to operate and make his feelings known
Comment from Terry Quarmby
Time December 7, 2009 at 9:02 am
Good morning all,
Whilst I cannot disagree that health & safety on site is of paramount importance, I am also aware that as responsible contractors and employers we are duty bound to apply the UK’s statutory legislation and to adhere to the codes of practice. Providing we carry out this perfunctionary obligation and regularly inspect and maintain our equipment there should be no need for further paper trails or reporting. When the revised high reach guidance is issued owners and operators of these machines will be left in no doubt as to their statutory and moral obligations. The tower crane situation is quite different to that of a high reach demolition rig. Many of the reported and well known incidences have happened during the erection or dismantling sequence with a smaller number of incidences during the actual operation. Operator failure can and does result in accidents and incidents and although we can report low incident rates within the demolition fraternity we would be better employed ensuring that our machine operators are well trained and up to speed with current best practice through the application of a robust training and assessment scheme than spending time and effort on a register that may not have the desired effect.
Terry Quarmby