Sure, and what better way to demonstrate that than to put a man on the job who wants to blabber off stats. about acceptable risk, while always being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know, that's why the back up alarm was invented, to keep the safety guy safe. Everyone else knows how to be aware of the situation, and GTFO of the way.
Well, of course, I know bucknfeller could not be talking about me, because I have never been on one of his work sites. But the stats are an interesting point when guys moan about high work comp rates. It's not just a bunch of insurance guys who sit around in a room deciding to pick on loggers this week. It is because logging and commercial fishing have the highest rates of fatalities in the US. If you guys really knew how to GTFO of the way, you might be paying rates closer to florists.
It also raises the differences between '
safety' and '
luck'. I used a chainsaw off and on for 30 some years before I really learned anything about chainsaw safety. I never got cut. But now I realize that a lot of that was due to luck - and you all know how reliable that can be.
Guys tell me, "
I've been doing this for . . . years ", or, "
My father and grandfather did it this way and never . . .", etc. First, I am glad you did not get hurt. But that is a pretty limited sample. Even, "
all the guys I know" is a relatively small number, when 20,000 to 40,000 people check into emergency rooms in the US every year with chainsaw-related injuries*.
*These are only the ones reported. It also does not include guys who use a chainsaw to cut a tree and are crushed by the tree. That would be a tree-related injury according to how they classify ER reports. Back-up alarms are also a separate category.
I am not discounting the value of experience in working safe. In any field. We rely a lot on the experienced guys (and gals) to help us understand root causes, and to develop control measures. But experience only accumulates in the survivors, and that is a lousy way to teach/learn safe work practices. An experienced guy may be a good worker but a lousy teacher. Newer guys may have to survive many 'near-miss' events to understand hazards, or they may never understand that there are other ways of doing things until it is too late. And trial and error learning can be inefficient and dangerous, especially with things like trees and work sites that can have so many variations.
A safe (versus luck-based) approach uses multiple layers:
- Engineering Controls - design of saws, chains, harvesters, etc.
- Work Practices - methods, training, planning, etc.
- Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) - boots, chaps, gloves, helmets, glasses, ear plugs, etc.
Doesn't mean that you can't be lucky. Just gives you a back up plan when the unexpected happens or the luck runs thin. Brad wearing a helmet (post that started this thread) would not have prevented that tree from smacking him, it would have just lessened the impact. A few inches either way, and it could have meant the difference between life and death.
Philbert
