Safety and liability

Re: Chippers, OSHA and ANSI Z133.1

TMW

thank you once again for taking time out of your day to sift through OSHA and ANSI standards for us!

we all benefit from being safe and following these standards!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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



[/ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, TMW. please call peter gerstenberger at TCIA, and be sure he has read the above before asking him if it's cool for me to name the cat right here in this thread?

These are real treeworkers dying here guys, and I for one take it very seriously, do you?

jomoco
 
Going back to the training option being better. Only if the culture of the company, from the very top through the middle to the bottom, embraces the philosophy and ensures all practices adopt the new skills and incorporates them without exception. I have seen way to often training bought and paid for by the company for the sole purpose of obtaining the certification or accreditation only to then be disregarded in regular daily practice.

Whether it's training, or devices to protect us, it can all be circumvented by a culture that sees them as impediments to speed and profit.

Our industry places a higher premium on the opportunity to make money than protect it's workers.
 
What you and every safety official are failing to understand TH, is that thousands of small, medium and even some large tree companies use unqualified untrained men to feed these WTC on a regular basis, and the death toll will continue escalating until strict laws and regulations are in force to deal with WTC manufacturers basic safety device standards, the grisly death tolls will continue to escalate.

More strident and shrill lecturing on following WTC instructions and safe operating procedures isn't sufficient to correct this growing problem, not even close.

To maintain the status quo and provide cover for these manufacturers thumbing their noses at safety officials as the carnage escalates is a betrayal by the safety officials to the very people they are suppose to be protecting.

These officials profess to us that two man minimums or inhopper failsafe devices are beyond their abilities to mandate, then go so far as to state they are uncalled for?

Who are they really protecting here? Is it treeworkers on the job, or manufacturers too dang cheap to put inhopper failsafe's on their products?

Something stinks at TCIA, ISA, NIOSH/FACE and OSHA in my opinion, poor helpless little darlings that can't do their friggin jobs, and take on these manufacturers enough to atleast reduce this escalating carnage in our industry.

jomoco
 
you stated earlier that those cords in the inhopper need maintenance . but yet you still refer to them as failsafes. a failsafe is an absolute, those pullcords are not absolute!


please stop lieing to prove your point, and why are you taking this to a personal level with everybody? it is absolutely ridiculous that you are doing what you're doing here lieing and dodging important issues. you have tried name dropping, we proved it was a lie, you tried saying that this design or that invention is a failsafe, we proved that wrong, now you're calling out Peter Gerstenberger!?

answer the questions we ask of you! we are trying to have a civil discussion on how to improve our industry and save lives with PROVEN techniques and tools. not some mirage in the desert, or a patent in an office that has never seen the light of day.

please Jomoco answer the questions and turn this thread around for the better, no more mud slinging!
 
You're the one who's been caught in two brazen lies in these threads BB, not me. And it's all there for anyone to read who wants to.

You may consider Morey's failsafe device an unproven mirage, but your stating that only constitues a third lie by you in these threads. You're like a little 6 year old compounding your self evident lies, and strutting about thinking you're smart while the adults in the room shake their heads in embarrassment for your childish antics.

Do yourself a favor BB and back off instead of embarrassing yourself further my friend.

jomoco
 
Well considering that I haven't lied, and it's self evident in the threads that you have BB, your claim of amnesia seems rather absurd.

The facts are that the 1800's involved in these fatalities do indeed have reverse bar function positions exactly as I stated, and that you lied when you stated otherwise falsely.

The facts are that there are indeed WTC's with grapples and operator's cabs of the same horse power and capacities as those sold for hand fed applications by various manufacturers.

The facts are that Morey's inhopper failsafe device is proven technology that's been on the market now for almost a decade, and not unproven junk as you falsely claimed it to be BB.

Now exactly who's making false claims here BB?

jomoco
 
I haven't lied, not once. sorry you feel that way! if you can prove that I did my invitation stands, beer and food on me at the next event we are both at!

1800 are indeed involved. you said that newer Vermeers with the lower pushbar and 4 way stop have been involved, they haven't.

this latest chipper accident involved an 1800 in disreapir, and the OWNER of the company said the man was most likely pushing something in with his hands, or kicking a piece into the feed wheels!!!!!!


no no jojo, not so fast9 you're saying that ALL wholetree chippers are the same, with or without cabs! can you show me one with an enclosed cab and grapple that's also designed to be handfed?


Moreys design is a step in the right direction, nowhere near a failsafe device though!!!! we have very few failsafes in our industry, this isn't one of them. it is a backup safety device!

you're asking me to be an adult, can you answer any of these questions posed to you above, or previously like an adult please? I honestly think that if the Libel and personal attacks from you stop, we could get somewhere. there are lots of people reading this thread, and if we could get some calm answers from you, and a discussion going with answers, we could definitely get some BIG things to happen!

come on JoJo answer the questions, for all of us!
 
Your second paragraph above constitutes a 4th lie by you BB.

Let me know when you reach china as you dig yourself in ever deeper good buddy!

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why even bother with this Jim? There is a good reason this joker has been kicked off of other forums....

[/ QUOTE ]

You've decided to start telling falsehoods too OTG?

Name one professional tree forum I've been kicked off of my friend, just one?

jomoco
 
Well this is the most recent lie by you on this very page:

[ QUOTE ]


1800 are indeed involved. you said that newer Vermeers with the lower pushbar and 4 way stop have been involved, they haven't.

[end quote]


jomoco
 
Come on BB, quote me saying what you falsely accuse me of saying! Go through both threads with a fine tooth comb BB!

Let's find out who's lying and who isn't my friend!

jomoco
 
you said Mathers device was not only available, but proven and tested in the field for years.......Mr Mathers says he has NO commercially available units, especially not for WTC!

you have also stated that WTC with enclosed cabs and grapples are designed to be handfed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why even bother with this Jim? There is a good reason this joker has been kicked off of other forums....

[/ QUOTE ]

You've decided to start telling falsehoods too OTG?

Name one professional tree forum I've been kicked off of my friend, just one?

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

OOPS, I apologize. There is definately a difference between being kicked off and being ignored by most of the forum members. My bad. Please continue your nonsensical rant....
 
its in the other thread, you carried on about how great it was, and how well it works, and how every chipper should have it. you also said that a chipper maker in AUS has been using it for sometime.

I am posting from a mobile device now, I will go back this evening and grab that for you, unless it has been edited? i n that case ill hook up with some of the different major legal counsels following this thread and seeing the Libel statements you are making. they have multiple HTML copies of this thread saved, since it is so easy to edit without someone knowing.

you also failed to show me my 4 lies, sir.

and as always you have failed to answer anyones question, posted directly to you, that could make this thread turn into something better than the self admitted hatred for american chipper makers that you have.

come one, stop the mud slinging and start a real discussion.....answer the direct questions that have been asked of you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom