Safety and liability

While training is the solution the problem then becomes getting all companies to train and comply to proper safety practices. When basic PPE isn't used and other safe work practices are debated as encumbering, how in this lifetime are any of our fellow tree co's going to make the investment in proper training and enforcement?
 
You can train and lecture till the cows come home and it still won't eliminate the need for safety devices in our industry like chain brakes, chaps, hardhats or inhopper failsafes TH.

People, even treeworkers, are inherently prone to mistakes or we wouldn't need safety devices at all.

Why doesn't a WTC operator deserve them?

jomoco
 
Failsafe is an absolute word. you have to be careful using it. Moreys device is not a failsafe it can easily be compromised, and then FAIL.



can you name a proven and tested system that would help an incapacitated worker out JoJo? We have already determined yours and Mathers don't qualify!

why was your system/invention not field tested and pushed hard?


you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab! correct?


do you know the meaning of Libel?
 
If tree workers were mistake prone, we'd all be dead. This is a business where you don't get to make a lot of mistakes and still go home with all your parts.

We do have safety devices, LOTS of safety devices. RFID is one that so far, offers little return on investment compared to training... I'm guessing lecturing won't help too much though, it never did anything for me anyway.

It's the results of automatic safety devices COMPARED to training that I'm talking about. Training will get you better results for your money. Invest in people, not corporations.

This kinda relates to Evo's thread. It's high time for ground operators to receive professional recognition just like climbers. There should be training and certs and corresponding compensation. Pro groundie's are too valuable to keep ignoring.

I would rather see chippers become more compact and less noisy rather than more usable by untrained, hungover day laborers.
 
The trouble with lecturing is no one listens to lectures. Training is a much more valuable tool. Especialy hands on training.

we don't know what chipper manufacturers have in R&D right now, only they do. they could very well have a system out there in development that blows Mathers and Jomocos out of the water!

I feel we need to look at training, SAFETY training! what leads up to these events? is it a lapse in judgement? catastrophic error/failure? an end of the day mistake? or is it a behavoiral event? my money is on that it is a behavoiral event that no one has
tried to fix and keeps occuring. Any CTSP can follow what I am saying. we need to change behavoirs, with training and a culture of safety, in order to prevent accidents. workers with behavoir style accidents have the same accidents and near misses occur over and over and over until they learn and change said behavoir, or die doing that behavior!

so right now we have two choices, install small slippery cords in the chute of every chipper and go on as usual, OR train our workers to be safer, more productive people who help to not only keep themselves safe, but help build that same safety culture within the co.!


how many of these chipper deaths, occurred on TREE crews? how many occurred on Landscape/green industry crews performing tree related tasks?





Jomoco


can you name a proven and tested system that would help an incapacitated worker out JoJo? We have already determined yours and Mathers don't qualify!

why was your system/invention not field tested and pushed hard?


you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab! correct?


do you know the meaning of Libel?
 
How very touching Blinky, your admiration and respect for groundmen is so great you'd prefer to see the chippers they use each day quieter rather than safer to use interms of lethality to said groundmen.

You're all heart there blinky.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
How very touching Blinky, your admiration and respect for groundmen is so great you'd prefer to see the chippers they use each day quieter rather than safer to use interms of lethality to said groundmen.

You're all heart there blinky.

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]



Personal attacks aren't productive!


answering the following questions would be though.......

can you name a proven and tested system that would help an incapacitated worker out JoJo? We have already determined yours and Mathers don't qualify!

why was your system/invention not field tested and pushed hard?


you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab! correct?


do you know the meaning of Libel?
 
And you BB, actin like vermeers are the greatest safest chippers on the market despite having no inhopper failsafes or the fact that 1800's are an extremely prominant chipper involved in a very large number of these fatalities.

I guess vermeer just couldn't quite bring themselves to care enough for the trapped operators of their chippers to provide them with a failsafe pull handle that may have prevented the deaths involving their chippers.

I'd say the failsafes at bandit and morbark show far more concern for trapped operators than vermeer has shown, and it's proven by their safety devices being there in times of need. Rather than absent and another dead operator using a vermeer chipper.

Well yu see your honor, engineering them there failsafe pull handles is hard to do, I mean yu gotta drill a few holes, yu gotta spend over 200 dollars tu do it is what it boils down to your honor!

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How very touching Blinky, your admiration and respect for groundmen is so great you'd prefer to see the chippers they use each day quieter rather than safer to use interms of lethality to said groundmen.

You're all heart there blinky.

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]



Personal attacks aren't productive!



[/ QUOTE ]

And neither are your fellow treeworkers in ten thousand fragmented pieces BB!

That you begrudge them a two hundred dollar inhopper failsafe handle to save their lives tells me just about all I need or want to know about you or Blinky!

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
How very touching Blinky, your admiration and respect for groundmen is so great you'd prefer to see the chippers they use each day quieter rather than safer to use interms of lethality to said groundmen.

You're all heart there blinky.

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

Now see, that's just stupid. It's not an either/or situation. Chippers ARE dangerous, RFID isn't going to change that, they still have cutters on big, fast spinning metal wheels that don't stop easy. RFID is SO pathetically easy to defeat it's pointless, because only a well trained and lead crew would ever use it... and they don't need it. Failsafe is plainly the wrong term.

You OBVIOUSLY have something personal invested in RFID and it's equally obvious that that is the source of your own caring and tender heartedness.

Quieter IS safer... for the WHOLE crew. Loud chippers damage hearing due to bone conduction even with good ear protection... and they do it ALL the time they are running. They also interfere with critical communication between climber and crew. Quieter chippers will yield far more benefits than a single, easily defeatable safety interlock.

If all you care about is pushing RFID, go schill your crap on Arboristsite, I'm sure they'll let you sponsor them in exchange for advocating RFID.

You lost this argument waaaay back, you know it. Getting personal is clear proof of that. It's your only alternative to clear, concise reasoning.
 
How many of these deaths on 1800's can you prove?

how many were on the new style with 4 way feed bar and lower bump bar?

how many were on tree crews?

how many deaths were from non industry folks performing tree tasks?



can you name a proven and tested system that would help an incapacitated worker out JoJo? We have already determined yours and Mathers don't qualify!

why was your system/invention not field tested and pushed hard?


you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab! correct?


do you know the meaning of Libel?
 
It sure looks like the very fatality that sparked this whole debate occured using an 1800 vermeer BB.

It's a clue magoo!

The pertinent question is whether a 200 dollar inhopper failsafe handle could have saved his life?

Think about it real hard there sherlock.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]


The pertinent question is whether a 200 dollar inhopper failsafe handle could have saved his life?



[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, if that's the only question you have, then the answer is a definitive maybe. I suppose it COULD have. So COULD lots of other things. The debate is endless because you have no real data, only anecdotal accounts.

But bumping the price of every chipper by $400 (if it cost the maker $200, that's $400 to the end user) on a definitive maybe means we should be adding all sorts of stuff to chippers until humans are no longer required to go near them. Practicality matters, safety matters. Real safety is in the behavior of the individual, not a gadget that my 12 year old could defeat.

You haven't addressed anybody's questions, just spouted crap like a congressmen bidding for re-election.

I'll say it again. You lost this debate waaay back because you haven't got a leg to stand on... only a $200 gadget of highly questionable value.

Just answer this, how do you keep RFID from being defeated?
 
Blinky

we have already heard from the maker of RFID. he said his invention isn't on a commercial yet, not even in his LAB! so that's a null and void point.





was that 1800 a newer style with the 4 way upper bar and the trip bar on the bottom or the 10+ year old design? were all the safety features working properly?




why won't you answer ANY questions!!!???


can you name a proven and tested system that would help an incapacitated worker out JoJo? We have already determined yours and Mathers don't qualify!

why was your system/invention not field tested and pushed hard?


you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab! correct?


do you know the meaning of Libel?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The pertinent question is whether a 200 dollar inhopper failsafe handle could have saved his life?



[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, if that's the only question you have, then the answer is a definitive maybe. I suppose it COULD have. So COULD lots of other things. The debate is endless because you have no real data, only anecdotal accounts.

But bumping the price of every chipper by $400 (if it cost the maker $200, that's $400 to the end user) on a definitive maybe means we should be adding all sorts of stuff to chippers until humans are no longer required to go near them. Practicality matters, safety matters. Real safety is in the behavior of the individual, not a gadget that my 12 year old could defeat.

You haven't addressed anybody's questions, just spouted crap like a congressmen bidding for re-election.

I'll say it again. You lost this debate waaay back because you haven't got a leg to stand on... only a $200 gadget of highly questionable value.

Just answer this, how do you keep RFID from being defeated?

[/ QUOTE ]

That you lack enough brain power to comprehend what Mr Morey's patent, issued a friggin decade ago will actually mean in a US court of law, will not change the outcome.

When a chipper manufacturer designs, patents and then manufactures and sells WTC's with that device, it's a defacto admission that their product is indeed dangerous enough to it's operators to warrant a failsafe emergency device in the inhopper of the machine.

This technology being over 10 years old, and the rights to it being held by a major manufacturer for license to other manufacturers, is a defacto admission that the entire chipper mfg industry as a whole had reasonable access to chipper safety technology, that could reasonably have been expected to prevent a significant number of grisly deaths experienced by treeworkers operating their chippers.

Thus making it obvious that had OSHA, ANSI, NIOSH/FACE, ISA and TCIA, done their jobs and stayed abreast of the safety technology available 10 years ago to mitigate these gruesome chipper fatalities, their numbers might be going down now rather than escalating!

All these so called safety officials are apparently unable to support two man minimums to reduce these deaths, mandatory simple inhopper failsafes to reduce these deaths, or spending a red cent on real 21st century safety devices capable of saving the life of an incapacitated worker on the friggin job.

It's like some sick twisted logic rationalizing depriving a worker of a cheap simple effective means to save his own life while on the job in a known dangerous environment.

If it was in your power to reduce these accidents 10 years ago, and these accidents have increased because you chose to look the other way, then you as a safety official have failed miserably in your job.

Manufacturers of these machines without inhopper failsafes deserve to be sued for callous disregard for their product's operators, since they knew a device was available to them a decade ago that may have been able to prevent these deaths, and they chose not to equip their chippers with them at that time.

The cat's been out of the bag now for over a decade, and these manufacturers and so called safety officials need to realize it and change their tune before I name the cat in court and embarrass the heck out of all of you.

I know what's going on here and I'm trying to be reasonable, but why am I the sole ambassador on behalf of dead WTC operators here, be they smart, stupid, mistake prone or not, spending a couple hundred bucks on an industry standard device to give them atleast a chance at continued life is not asking too much, or is it?

jomoco
 
Well now the truth is out! you are on this rant because you hate american chipper makers. your testimony will never be allowed in a court of law after this thread, you do realize that right?

your a veteran court goer, do you know the meaning of Libel?




was that 1800 a newer style with the 4 way upper bar and the trip bar on the bottom or the 10+ year old design? were all the safety features working properly?




why won't you answer ANY questions!!!???


can you name a proven and tested system that would help an incapacitated worker out JoJo? We have already determined yours and Mathers don't qualify!

why was your system/invention not field tested and pushed hard?


you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab! correct?
 
I can well afford to ignore your silly childish ravings BB,

The question is whether the most prominant safety officials in our industry can afford to ignore mine, since they are based quite firmly in provable facts?

jomoco
 
you're not serious are you? really?

you're a LIAR, with NO facts!!

you haven't had a factual based comment you can back up yet, and anytime I prove you wrong on one of your "facts" you ignore the response and change the subject.

why do you do this? why can't you admit that you're a liar, apologize and save some face? WHY?
 
Chippers, OSHA and ANSI Z133.1

Here is what OSHA has to say regarding chippers, from: Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR) Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution. - 1910.269


1910.269(r)(2)
"Brush chippers."

1910.269(r)(2)(i)
Brush chippers shall be equipped with a locking device in the ignition system.

1910.269(r)(2)(ii)
Access panels for maintenance and adjustment of the chipper blades and associated drive train shall be in place and secure during operation of the equipment.

..1910.269(r)(2)(iii)

1910.269(r)(2)(iii)
Brush chippers not equipped with a mechanical infeed system shall be equipped with an infeed hopper of length sufficient to prevent employees from contacting the blades or knives of the machine during operation.

1910.269(r)(2)(iv)
Trailer chippers detached from trucks shall be chocked or otherwise secured.

1910.269(r)(2)(v)
Each employee in the immediate area of an operating chipper feed table shall wear personal protective equipment as required by Subpart I of this Part.

Here is what ANSI Z133.1 -2006 has to say:

5.3 Brush Chippers

5.3.1 The items contained in section 5.1 shall always be included in the review of this section.

5. SAFE USE OF VEHICLES AND MOBILE EQUIPMENT USED IN ARBORICULTURE

5.1 Vehicles and Mobile Equipment

5.1.1 Prior to daily use of any vehicles and mobile equipment (units), visual walk-around
inspections and operational checks shall be made in accordance with manufacturers’ and
owners’ instructions and applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

5.1.2 Units shall be equipped and maintained with manufacturers’ safety devices, instructions,
warnings, and safeguards. Arborists and other workers shall follow instructions provided
by manufacturers.

5.1.3 Manufacturers’ preventive maintenance inspections and parts replacement procedures
shall be followed.

5.1.4 Manufacturers’ instructions shall be followed in detecting hydraulic leaks. No part of the
body shall be used to locate or stop hydraulic leaks.

5.1.5 Units shall be operated or maintained only by authorized and qualified personnel in
accordance with company policies and federal, state, or local laws.

5.1.6 Material and equipment carried on vehicles shall be properly stored and secured in
compliance with the design of the unit in order to prevent the movement of material or
equipment.

5.1.7 Step surfaces and platforms on mobile equipment shall be skid-resistant.

5.1.8 Safety seatbelts, when provided by the manufacturer, shall be worn while a unit is being
operated.

5.1.9 Riding or working outside or on top of units shall not be permitted unless the units are
designed for that purpose or the operator is performing maintenance or inspection.

5.1.10 Hoisting or lifting equipment on vehicles shall be used within rated capacities as stated
by the manufacturers’ specifications.

5.1.11 Units with obscured rear vision, particularly those with towed equipment, should be
backed up only when absolutely necessary and then should be used with external rear
guidance, such as a spotter, or a backup alarm.

5.1.12 When units are left unattended, keys shall be removed from ignition, the wheels
chocked, and, if applicable, the parking brake applied.

5.1.13 Units shall be turned off, keys removed from the ignition, and rotating parts at rest prior
to making repairs or adjustments, except where manufacturers’ procedures require otherwise.
Defects or malfunctions affecting the safe operation of equipment shall be corrected
before such units are placed into use.

5.1.14 Personal protective equipment (for example, eye, head, hand, and ear protection) shall
be worn in accordance with section 3.4, Personal Protective Equipment.

5.1.15 When towing, safety chains shall be crossed under the tongue of the unit being towed
and connected to the towing vehicle.

5.1.16 Care should be taken to ensure that a unit’s exhaust system does not present a fire hazard.

5.1.17 Towed units that detach from another unit (for example, a motorized vehicle) shall be
chocked or otherwise secured in place.

5.1.18 Units operated off-road shall be operated in the proper gear and at the proper speed relative
to the operating environment and the manufacturers’ instructions and guidelines.

5.3.2 Access panels (for example, guards) for maintenance and adjustment, including discharge
chute and cutter housing, shall be closed and secured prior to starting the engine
of brush chippers. These access panels shall not be opened or unsecured until the engine
and all moving parts have come to a complete stop (see Annex C, General Safety Procedures
That Apply to All Tree Work).

5.3.3 Rotary drum or disc brush chippers not equipped with a mechanical infeed system shall
be equipped with an infeed hopper not less than 85 inches (2.15 m) measured from the
blades or knives to ground level over the center line of the hopper. Side members of the
infeed hopper shall have sufficient height so as to prevent workers from contacting the
blades or knives during operations.

5.3.4 Rotary drum or disc brush chippers not equipped with a mechanical infeed system shall
have a flexible anti-kickback device installed in the infeed hopper to reduce the risk of
injury from flying chips and debris.

5.3.5 Chippers equipped with a mechanical infeed system shall have a quick-stop and reversing
device on the infeed system. The activating mechanism for the quick-stop and reversing
device shall be located across the top, along each side, and close to the feed end of
the infeed hopper within easy reach of the worker.

5.3.6 Vision, hearing, and/or other appropriate personal protective equipment shall be worn
when in the immediate area of a brush chipper in accordance with section 3.4, Personal
Protective Equipment.

5.3.7 Arborists, mechanics, and other workers shall not, under any circumstances, reach into
the infeed hopper when the cutter disc, rotary drum, or feed rollers are moving.

5.3.8 When trailer chippers are detached from the vehicles, they shall be chocked or otherwise
secured in place.

5.3.9 When in a towing position, chipper safety chains shall be crossed under the tongue of
the chipper and properly affixed to the towing vehicle.

5.3.10 See section 8.6, Brush Removal and Chipping, for additional requirements.

8.6 Brush Removal and Chipping

8.6.1 Traffic control around the jobsite shall be established prior to the start of chipping operations
along roads and highways (see section 3.2, Traffic Control Around the Jobsite).

8.6.2 Brush and logs shall not be allowed to create hazards in the work areas.

8.6.3 To prevent an entanglement hazard, loose clothing, climbing equipment, body belts, harnesses,
lanyards, or gauntlet-type gloves (for example, long-cuffed lineman’s or welder’s
gloves) shall not be worn while operating chippers.

8.6.4 Personal protective equipment shall be worn when in the immediate area of chipping operations
in accordance with section 3.4, Personal Protective Equipment, of this standard.

8.6.5 Training shall be provided in the proper operation, feeding, starting, and shutdown procedures
for the chipper being used.
ANSI Z133.1-2006 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations 28 ©2006, Internatinational Society of Arboriculture

8.6.6 Maintenance shall be performed only by those persons authorized by the employer and
trained to perform such operations.

8.6.7 Brush and logs shall be fed into chippers, butt or cut end first, from the side of the feed
table center line, and the operator shall immediately turn away from the feed table when
the brush is taken into the rotor or feed rollers. Chippers should be fed from the curbside
whenever practical.

8.6.8 The brush chipper discharge chute or cutter housing cover shall not be raised or removed
while any part of the chipper is turning or moving. Chippers shall not be used unless a discharge
chute of sufficient length or design is provided that prevents personal contact with
the blades (see Annex C, General Safety Procedures That Apply to All Tree Work).

8.6.9 Foreign material, such as stones, nails, sweepings, and rakings, shall not be fed into chippers.

8.6.10 Small branches shall be fed into chippers with longer branches or by being pushed with
a long stick.

8.6.11 Hands or other parts of the body shall not be placed into the infeed hopper. Leaning into
or pushing material into infeed hoppers with feet is prohibited.

8.6.12 While material is being fed into the chipper infeed hopper chute, pinch points continually
develop within the material being chipped and between the material and machine.
The operator shall be aware of this situation and respond accordingly.

8.6.13 When feeding a chipper during roadside operations, the operator shall do so in a manner
that prevents him or her from stepping into traffic or being pushed into traffic by the
material that is being fed into the chipper.

8.6.14 When using a winch in chipper operations, the operator shall ensure that the winch
cable is properly stored before initiating chipper operations.

8.6.15 Refer to section 5.3, Brush Chippers, for additional information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom