Why are so many on-site incidents now greeted with a shrug of the shoulders?
Twice in the past few months, I have found myself on the sharp end of some heated criticism over my coverage of accidents that have taken place in the demolition world.
On the first occasion, I was reminded that I am “just a journalist”, that my opinion was, therefore, invalid and that I failed to grasp the complexity and hazards that are part and parcel of demolition life. On the second, I was treated to a definition of the true meaning of the word “accident” and was left in no doubt that since the incident in question did not result in an injury or fatality, it didn’t fully satisfy the dictionary definition.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. You can use all the weasel words and semantics at your disposal but the fact is – sure as eggs is eggs – an accident is an accident.
This is not, however, just a plea to not shoot the messenger, although that would be nice. Rather, this is a rallying cry to demolition professionals across the world to not allow complacency to undo all the good work that has been achieved in the field of site safety over the past 20 years or so.
There are, of course, extenuating circumstances. In the US, OSHA is a shadow of its former self and no longer possesses the manpower required to keep a watchful eye on every demolition site in every city in every state. In the UK, the Health & Safety Executive seems rather preoccupied with its commercial viability in advance of the introduction of a Fee for Intervention later this year.
In truth, however, none of this should matter. Safety, like charity, begins at home. It is a choice, a lifestyle, and a mindset; not a rule to be followed when someone might be watching.
To those contractors that brag about taking on the contracts that others won’t touch due to safety concerns – you know who you are – this doesn’t make you big or clever; it doesn’t make you a maverick or a pioneer; and it certainly doesn’t make you manly or macho.
I have a theory, one that I tend to espouse when stating why war is generally a very bad idea. If national leaders are really that keen to go to war, I say give them a gun and let them go in first so we can see just how brave and committed they really are.
But what say we widen that concept to include those bold, brave mavericks that insist upon putting men and machines in harm’s way?
Rather than tipping your hard hat while worrying about the next pay check when told to undertake a task you know to be hazardous, what say you just throw your boss the keys to the excavator and then retire to a safe distance while he puts HIS life on the line. Maybe then we’ll see just how macho they really are.
