Common Sense, & The Lack Of.............

Dave7

Guru
Location
Cheshire
Our our former H&S adviser who pulled me up for not having a high viz on in the yard. Fair enough, I slipped it on and then pointed out....
My jumper is black. My 'high viz' is black (designated engineers colour)
Yes but you got your high viz on now...was the reply.
Actually I have a reflective on. Its daylight and reflective if useless in daylight...so what's the point ,? I asked smiling cheekily.
You're obeying the rules she said.

Yeah right, no common sense, just rules.
I used to work on high rise roofs, some very high. It always puzzled me that when eg I was surveying a roof to price a job I had to wear high viz and hard hat. There was only me, a clip board, measuring device and pencil up there........what is going to drop on my head ??
 

Dirk

If 6 Was 9
Other high risk activities could encompass riding motorcycles at speeds above 70mph on road or track for example.
Why the arbitrary figure of 70mph?
I used to regularly race bikes at over 150mph with no problems.
I've come off a bike at over 100mph on a couple of occasions and walked away.
I've also seen someone high side at 30mph and get killed by the impact. Speed is not the only factor.
 

vickster

Legendary Member
Why the arbitrary figure of 70mph?
I used to regularly race bikes at over 150mph with no problems.
I've come off a bike at over 100mph on a couple of occasions and walked away.
I've also seen someone high side at 30mph and get killed by the impact. Speed is not the only factor.
Because that's the maximum limit on the roads and thus, imo, the rider is putting them at a risk beyond that which the law expects.
If you were doing 100mph on a public road and injured, personally my sympathy would be more limited than if you were doing 70 on a motorway or DC or 30 in a 30 limit

If doing it on a track, then you have chosen to take that risk and presumably are insured to be riding at that speed on that track... in which case, maybe your insurance should cover the cost of your care if injured and not the NHS (maybe you did have insurance to cover full private HC). Just a musing. We expect the NHS to patch us up whether there was heightened risk or not. whether something was avoidable or not. Unfortunately, those finite resources may mean that in the future, this is no longer the case. Controversial perhaps, but it's the reality as we live longer and the population grows
 
Last edited:

Dave7

Guru
Location
Cheshire
My favourite “H&S gone mad” story. It happened to a friend of a friend - which usually means the story is made up, but this one’s definitely true.

He needed access to a construction site. He was wearing cargo shorts.
He pulled on a hi-viz vest and a hard hat, and went to the gate.

“You can’t come in dressed like that. Health & safety”.
“Why not”
"You’re wearing trainers. Can’t let anyone in unless they’re wearing boots with toecaps”.
“Have you noticed that I’ve got 2 artificial legs?” He pointed down at the 2 metal rods poking out of his shorts, with trainers on the end.
“Can’t you put boots on them?”
Another true story. Working on a sloping metal deck roof I wore my trainer style toetectors. The project manager pulled me up and when I explained he insisted on stamping on ny toes to test them.
That afternoon I saw the same guy jump off the forks of a fork lift truck....right into a waste container so as to move the rubbish around.
I pulled him up on it and he told me "in my position I can get away with it".
 

Dirk

If 6 Was 9
If doing it on a track, then you have chosen to take that risk and presumably are insured to be riding at that speed on that track... in which case, maybe your insurance should cover the cost of your care if injured and not the NHS.....
Nope....it don't work that way. Track insurance is mainly to indemnify the organisers.
Track insurance would pay out a small amount in case of death (around £10k when I was racing), otherwise any injuries we're down to the NHS - who, I must admit, we're very good on the odd occasions I used them.
 

Dave7

Guru
Location
Cheshire
^_^^_^^_^
In that case everyone should wear a hard hat. You just never know when an plane might land on your head.
 

Brains

Guru
Location
Greenwich
Much as I dislike the idea, the time of 'free at the point of delivery' for the NHS is passing.

As long as it's not done like the system in the USA and more like the system in Germany then it may not be a massive loss

In Germany everyone gets a (free) annual check up. This actually saves money as issues are caught earlier.
If you don't turn up for your annual check up then you have a sum deducted from your salary. (in effect, taxed)

You also pay a fixed sum to visit a GP, again if you don't turn up, you pay the bill.

I can see that the NHS will turn into the health system of last resort, anyone with a remotely decent job will get private health insurance.

My one proviso is people with issues that they were born with or developed through no fault of their own should be treated the best possible way, free of charge, for ever.

However something that is self inflicted, then a charge should be made, ideally by taxing the person either by either increased NI or IHT
 

vickster

Legendary Member
Much as I dislike the idea, the time of 'free at the point of delivery' for the NHS is passing.

As long as it's not done like the system in the USA and more like the system in Germany then it may not be a massive loss

In Germany everyone gets a (free) annual check up. This actually saves money as issues are caught earlier.
If you don't turn up for your annual check up then you have a sum deducted from your salary. (in effect, taxed)

You also pay a fixed sum to visit a GP, again if you don't turn up, you pay the bill.

I can see that the NHS will turn into the health system of last resort, anyone with a remotely decent job will get private health insurance.

My one proviso is people with issues that they were born with or developed through no fault of their own should be treated the best possible way, free of charge, for ever.

However something that is self inflicted, then a charge should be made, ideally by taxing the person either by either increased NI or IHT
Private HC only pays up to a point for anything remotely chronic and then it’s self pay

On your last point, what if said individual has no job to pay NI (eg retired or disabled by whatever they’ve inflicted on themselves) or has no assets to be taxed when they die (and even if they do you deprive a spouse who has lived a healthy life and needs 24/7 care for dementia which could otherwise be funded)

This whole self inflicted thing is a bit of a can of worms surely. Not everyone who gets bowel cancer is obese or addicted to processed food but maybe they were heavier in the past or ate more bacon butties. Like not everyone who gets lung cancer or mouth cancer is a current smoker but maybe they used to (penalise then for quitting) or the former alcoholic with liver disease who turned their life around. Or the social drinker who routinely has more than 14 units a week in their 20s, 30s, 40s and gets bowel cancer in their 60s. Should they be denied treatment?
Or the diabetic who lost a load of weight but was too late being diagnosed when obese because they couldn’t bear the criticism from society and medics and now has complications in later life.

Who decides on this whole fault thing....moral/ethical?
Now coming off a motorbike at 100mph and needing care for the rest of their life following a double amputation or paraplegia...fault or not?

And so on and so forth
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom