case: control obligation for machine safety

[Tequila]

When I read these things, I want to give up everything and move to some underdeveloped and lost country and live the day, hunt and/or fish what little I need to throw at night without breaking my [Bleep].

I challenge that we are going towards the most total decline. every day that passes the retrocedes more and more. What a sadness.

 

[Tequila]

which removes me from the embarrassment in which I often find myself, or do I or do I not have to prevent the operators' suicide? response, if the action of suicide is not strictly related to work activity, do it as well.

the last time the certifying body for a special machine was in our company and pointed out some things about the protections I had prepared a discussion was born in which I said:"Sorry, but what do I have to do about this car? I have to prepare sensors that feel the mood of the operator and that if he wants to kill himself the machine as well as having a total stop they raise barriers so that if he dies it is not the fault of the latter?
you tell me where I can buy devices similar to cardiofrequencymeters to wear to each operator and that without these the machine does not work"

 

[MBT]

I, and more than I, the colleague responsible for the safety of plants, put this question continually.
but, frankly, in something like this.. .
[youtube]g6uxh-xtu-g[/youtube]If one wants to get hurt, there's no barrier to keep!

the last time the certifying body for a special machine was in our company and pointed out some things about the protections I had prepared a discussion was born in which I said:"Sorry, but what do I have to do about this car? I have to prepare sensors that feel the mood of the operator and that if he wants to kill himself the machine as well as having a total stop they raise barriers so that if he dies it is not the fault of the latter?
you tell me where I can buy devices similar to cardiofrequencymeters to wear to each operator and that without these the machine does not work"

Did you ask him when he's old?

 

[Tequila]

Did you ask him when he's old?

No, and fortunately he didn't understand the Venetian dialect, even if I think he heard the rosy of blasphemies I said when he came out of the door. on another car where instead one can draw your fingers or if you want to crush your head, being the dangerous zone to more than 2.5 meters from the ground instead it does not need to put safety devices as on the manual it is contemplated that you can not work on the work bench. But if I get up on it with a ladder and I work it still works, so at the point of departure! ! !

 

[MBT]

No, and fortunately he didn't understand the Venetian dialect, even if I think he heard the rosy of blasphemies I said when he came out of the door.

sin!
As my office cap suggests, if you know when he's doing the years you can send him a nice roll of toilet paper as a gift!
if he asks "why? " you simply have to explain to him what it is for and when using toilet paper. :biggrin:
If he's a smart minimum, he'll understand:finger:

 

[gerod]

@fulvio.
I know that the button was equipped with two buttons to maintain (double command) but not to standard; in fact the description says:

for this reason the worker himself operated the pushbutton with two fingers of the right hand while with the left hand held firm the cover of the lifting bin and in such a fringent pativa the crushing of the fourth finger of the left hand between the metal structure of the hydraulic lift and the cassone of the truck. after the injury, then, the worker lost his senses and fell into the ground, the further injury constituted by a skull fracture resulting in a disease greater than 40 days.

Perhaps the double command is not in norm but, I wonder, now I employer who draws waste I must also know the norms? all those applicable to equipment?
Don't you just know me 81/08?
the sentence says: "Yes, you must know them."
Then, allow me Mr. Judge, but the pusher does not press, if anything it holds in hand if portable. are the buttons or buttons that are pressed.

 

[MBT]

@fulvio.
I know that the button was equipped with two buttons to maintain (double command) but not to standard; in fact the description says:

Perhaps the double command is not in norm but, I wonder, now I employer who draws waste I must also know the norms? all those applicable to equipment?
Don't you just know me 81/08?
the sentence says: "Yes, you must know them."
Then, allow me Mr. Judge, but the pusher does not press, if anything it holds in hand if portable. are the buttons or buttons that are pressed.

I had the opportunity to work as a freelancer in the field of waste disposal.
a dear friend, who had worked on it for years, dismissed it with maximum vigor!
It's a field, he told me, where every holy day you're risking carabinieri coming to your office. the law tells you to but there are 5 judgments that say a1, a2, a3, b, c, d...

 

[gerod]

Marco, we're in Italy!
laws are disregarded by these judgments and therefore is normal!
I am just wondering what the Community product directives have to do if the employer has to respond?
and I wonder, but then the employer (or chicchessia) what should he do? the entrepreneur or the reader of judgments?
really, ever worse!
you find yourself in front of judges who overturn the laws, ctu who are sent to make expert opinions on topics that are unknown and often (where I say it by experience) what is objective becomes subjective, etc.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

@fulvio.
I know that the button was equipped with two buttons to maintain (double command) but not in accordance

not according to what norm?
the double command I use if in the risk assessment I have for example the risk of gluing contacts and/or button ink.
I use the bimanual command if in the risk assessment I have the risk of putting my hand in the pencil.

If the risk highlighted is only the first, why would I be out of order?

vice versa, if I also have the second and no bimanual command is installed, I wonder, why the builder was not dragged into court?

 

[MBT]

Marco, we're in Italy!
laws are disregarded by these judgments and therefore is normal!
I am just wondering what the Community product directives have to do if the employer has to respond?
and I wonder, but then the employer (or chicchessia) what should he do? the entrepreneur or the reader of judgments?
really, ever worse!
you find yourself in front of judges who overturn the laws, ctu who are sent to make expert opinions on topics that are unknown and often (where I say it by experience) what is objective becomes subjective, etc.

In fact, at the end of the day, on any security dispute, the reason will have those who have the best lawyer and not those who have applied the law/regulation

At some point it becomes normal for people to care. If I make you an idiot-proof car, it becomes unusable. if I don't do it, I'm persecutable, but if I do it dangerous and the customer/user don't report it, it's his own cabbage.
You, employee, must report the danger. If you don't, the responsibility is yours. If you do it and the employer does not correct you are authorized to refuse to use the machinery. However, if this is not widely and unequivocally documented, it could become insubordination.

There's enough to make you want to go to work in Namibia

 

[marcof]

not according to what norm?
double command I use it if in risk assessment I have for example the risk of gluing contacts and/or button ink.
the bimanual command use it if in risk assessment I have a chance to put my hand in the pencil.
If the risk highlighted is only the first, why would I be out of order?
vice versa, if I also have the second and no bimanual command is installed, I wonder, why the builder was not dragged into court?

refer to the risk assessment, so suppose it is the one that does or updates the company that buys the machinery.
Have patience if my considerations may not be in line (and I do not doubt it) with the various regulations in force, but if I buy a machine that must perform a certain function by means of one or more operators, why should I be the one to determine if that machine is at risk (it wanted the bimanual command and did not put it) and should not be the one who designed it for me according to the norm?
we leave the changes made by the customer, which obviously alter the original project; but the original project must remove me from all liability in case of accidents, including suicide assisted by the friend who lends himself to press the discovering of bimanual commands.

wanting at all costs to regulate human behaviors of people sometimes irresponsible seems to me a madness with unsustainable costs.
My employee a few years ago made a deep cut into the fingertip of an inch while using a scalpel. I swear to you, in the emergency room, they asked him if it was indisputable to use such sharp tools because "they are very dangerous..."
How can one expect to prevent an employee from thinking about what he is doing instead of thinking about the gnocca and above all how the owner can be responsible for it?
We're going to be like this and if the employee falls out of bed in the morning when the alarm rings, it's my fault because he was getting up to work.
"est modus in rebus, huh? :frown:

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I, and more than I, the colleague responsible for the safety of plants, put this question continually.
but, frankly, in something like this.. .

If one wants to get hurt, there's no barrier to keep!

and think that it is one of the areas with the lowest rate of accidents. . .
in plants of this type, what counts, more than the inherent danger of the machinery is the perception of the risk. here the perception of the risk is so high that it hurts almost exclusively in maintenance.

not for nothing, after working for eight hours in front of a scoring door, you are invested by a mule crossing the road to go to the cafeteria. It's when you're quieter than you're relaxing and the attention threshold gives you.

then... there is also to say that there are companies and companies... :biggrin:

 

[Fulvio Romano]

refer to the risk assessment, so suppose it is the one that does or updates the company that buys the machinery.
Have patience if my considerations may not be in line (and I do not doubt it) with the various regulations in force, but if I buy a machine that must perform a certain function by means of one or more operators, why should I be the one to determine if that machine is at risk (it wanted the bimanual command and did not put it) and should not be the one who designed it for me according to the norm?

no, in fact, if the machine is not in accordance with the manufacturer.
I believe that the sense of this sentence, but precisely summarizing the bone is: "Okay, the designer didn't think about it, but you saw them do a dangerous operation, why didn't you say anything"?

including suicide assisted by the friend who lends himself to press the discovery of bimanual commands.

the decision itself, in the part put by me in bold, points out that in this case the manager is the operator. or better, if the undesirable action has not been done to "simplify the work" (I try to tighten, then if you want to try to analyze from a legislative point of view).

wanting at all costs to regulate human behaviors of people sometimes irresponsible seems to me a madness with unsustainable costs.

Look... Deep a door open!

 

[gerod]

not according to what norm?
the double command I use if in the risk assessment I have for example the risk of gluing contacts and/or button ink.
I use the bimanual command if in the risk assessment I have the risk of putting my hand in the pencil.

If the risk highlighted is only the first, why would I be out of order?

vice versa, if I also have the second and no bimanual command is installed, I wonder, why the builder was not dragged into court?

Bimanual command!
That's when you risk the other hand!
I don't know the device. and if the manufacturer used a bi-manual command not conforming to 574 (two-handed commands)?
In this case, however, it is obvious that the risk was there but it was not evaluated.
Sure is that one cannot assess all risks (we remain reasonably predictable) otherwise we would write big risk assessment documents like the treccani with reasonable risk that no one reads what is inside!

 

[MBT]

and think that it is one of the areas with the lowest rate of accidents. . .
in plants of this type, what counts, more than the inherent danger of the machinery is the perception of the risk. here the perception of the risk is so high that it hurts almost exclusively in maintenance.

not for nothing, after working for eight hours in front of a scoring door, you are invested by a mule crossing the road to go to the cafeteria. It's when you're quieter than you're relaxing and the attention threshold gives you.

then... there is also to say that there are companies and companies... :biggrin:

What you say is true.
but it is also true that a suicidal aspiring finds all the possibilities that he wishes to achieve his purpose.
and the time someone does it in Italy... Can you imagine an "expert" in safety that analyzes the safety of an oven?
If the provisions apply to the letter, the whole steelworks should be closed, starting from the scrapyard to the finished product warehouse.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Of course it is that one cannot assess all risks (we remain reasonably predictable) otherwise we would write documents of assessment of big risks such as treccani with the reasonable risk that no one reads what is inside!

:hahahah:

and the time someone does it in Italy... Can you imagine an "expert" in safety that analyzes the safety of an oven?
If the provisions apply to the letter, the whole steelworks should be closed, starting from the scrapyard to the finished product warehouse.

Well... according to the machine directive if you really can't do anything, there's not much to do. the operator who risks life is informed. if the state of art is that, even if the risk is high, it is nevertheless admissible.

That's the crazy thing. I can cause philips because with their blender I smoothed a finger, and to do so I just split the glass, cut the support of the screws because they were not removable, pull out the micro, shortcircuit it, reassemble the blade, connect the current and press the button; and instead if in basket 3, along with the wreck load a dozen kilos of snow, a fire language of ten meters leaves nothing to my wife to put in the coffin, yet it's okay... and there are also rules of type c that say it's okay so

then... there is also to say that there are companies and companies... :biggrin:

Well? How does this not comment?? :tongue:

 

[gerod]

:hahahah:

Well? How does this not comment?? :tongue:

Who are you taking it with??? ? :biggrin:

 

[MBT]

Well... according to the machine directive if you really can't do anything, there's not much to do. the operator who risks life is informed. if the state of art is that, even if the risk is high, it is nevertheless admissible.

I have always wondered how many causes there are in America against stanley and other building houses because someone hammered their finger and there is no protection to prevent it. . .

That's the crazy thing. I can cause philips because with their blender I smoothed a finger, and to do so I just split the glass, cut the support of the screws because they were not removable, pull out the micro, shortcircuit it, reassemble the blade, connect the current and press the button; and instead if in basket 3, along with the wreck load a dozen kilos of snow, a fire language of ten meters leaves nothing to my wife to put in the coffin, yet it's okay... and there are also rules of type c that say it's okay so

with a dozen snow kili... probably the wife doesn't need to say anything. He understands it by himself from the bust that of his husband only remained the memory!
However, it's basically true. If you cut your fingers with the paper cutter you can sue the manufacturer. If you crash with the car against a pole, the fiat says "your caxxis."
we are really in the absurd, like the one who won the cause because in the instructions of the microwave there was not written "do not use the oven to dry live animals".

Well? How does this not comment?? :tongue:

If you were referring to construction companies,
if you were referring to the utilitarian companies. . I prefer not to comment. I would be censored by all the heavenly gods.