Construction Accidents

HSE
Health & Safety

Executive
Sample analysis of construction accidents

reported to HSE
Prepared by BOMEL LIMITED for the

Health and Safety Executive 2003
RESEARCH REPORT 139
HSE
Health & Safety
Executive
Sample analysis of construction accidents

reported to HSE
BOMEL LIMITED
Ledger House
Forest Green Road
Fifield
Maidenhead
Berkshire
SL6 2NR
This report presents results of a telephone survey, conducted by BOMEL Limited (BOMEL) on behalf
of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), of some 1000 notifiers of major and over-3-day injury
construction accidents that occurred between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002. The accidents
were representative of the kind and severity notified to HSE throughout the 2001/2 year. Around three
quarters of the cases examined were associated with property, split almost equally between new build
and refurbishment (including maintenance & repair). In both cases, almost half the accidents were
associated with domestic housing, the remainder being industrial or commercial properties or public
buildings. The remaining quarter of accident cases examined were linked largely to civil engineering
works (predominantly new build), roadworks (predominantly refurbishment/maintenance & repair) and
demolition. About two-thirds of construction clients were in the private sector and one third in the public
sector.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and
do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE BOOKS
© Crown copyright 2003
First published 2003
ISBN 0 7176 2724 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents results of a telephone survey, conducted by BOMEL Limited (BOMEL) on behalf
of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), of some 1000 notifiers of major and over-3-day injury
construction accidents that occurred between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002. The accidents
were representative of the kind and severity notified to HSE throughout the 2001/2 year. Some 39%
of notified accidents were associated with refurbishment of buildings (including maintenance &
repair) with 45% of those cases associated with domestic premises. An almost equal number (36%) of
notified accidents concerned new build properties, 47% of these cases being for domestic housing with
the remainder largely commercial and industrial. In 63% of cases notifiers said CDM applied at the
site. Some notifiers did not know but of the 287 cases where CDM was said not to apply, evidence
related to duration, number of workers etc suggested CDM should have been applied in 29%.
Construction clients were split 56% private sector (64% including domestic clients), 33% public sector
and 3% unknown.
Asked about other pressures on the job, only 13% of notifier thought the job was more demanding
than average from a schedule perspective and 8% that financial rewards were poorer than average. In
all but 5% of cases notifiers said method statements and risk assessments were available and up to date
but these were sometimes described as ‘generic’. In 80% of cases, notifiers said a safety induction had
been given.
Only 14% of notified accidents involved the self employed. However, based on answers to questions
regarding the form of contract, payment terms, line management etc under which they were working,
it appeared that all were effectively working as employees. There was evidence of uncertainty in this
area with 97 self-employed notifications in the ICC database increasing to 136 on the basis of
notifiers’ responses (a 40% increase).
Whilst trades such as carpentry (13%), bricklaying (8%), electrical (7%) contributed definable
proportions to the accident level, less easily classified craft and manual workers constitute over 20%
of the injured persons. However, when comparing the overall task they were undertaking with the
specific activity at the time of the accident, relatively few workers were exercising their core skills.
Instead, ancillary activities such as traversing the site, loading or unloading a vehicle, accessing /
leaving the workface etc dominate.
Comparison was made between the composition of the sample of 1004 major and over-3-day injury
accidents and corresponding information for the smaller set of 77 fatal accidents through the 2001/2
year. Whereas the private / public sector split was similar there was a shift towards proportionally
more notified accidents from large sites (15 or more people), from sites where CDM applied and
particularly from large contractors (employing 15 or more) as the responsible party. In the latter case,
it appears that the large to small contractor ratio changes from 42:58 for fatalities to 75:25 for notified
major and over-3-day injury accidents. It is considered that reporting of fatal accidents is universal
but major and over-3-day injuries are under-reported to different extents depending on industry sector
as recorded in the Labour Force Survey. It is therefore important that good reporting from large
companies, major sites and those where formal CDM controls are addressed are not interpreted as
poorer safety levels than smaller enterprises where under-reporting is greater. This survey deals only
with the profile of notified accidents.
In general, the responses to the survey were positive and notifiers particularly offered suggestions for
preventing similar accidents to the one they had reported in the future. Mapping the findings to the
Influence Network, revealed a similar pattern of key influences to those emerging in construction
workshops in parallel HSE research. For example, better Situational Awareness / Risk Perception and
Compliance were often associated with calls for greater care and attention and adherence to site rules,
iii
method statements and procedures amongst the workforce. The Operational Equipment deficiencies
observed in response to this question generally related to use, with (correct) footing of ladders being a
frequent example. Similarly, in relation to PPE, recommendations generally centre on wearing
equipment provided, with typical references to eye protection or gloves and only occasional mention
of hard hats, perhaps suggesting their use is generally accepted. Patterns emerging in relation to the
Internal Working Environment, frequently relate to the covering of temporary openings,
housekeeping, and maintenance of clearly defined walkways. Use of common sense and care and
attention are frequent suggestions to aid Competence and Situational Awareness. Where Training is
called for it is notable how frequently manual handling training is suggested specifically. Together
issues raised under Procedures and Planning, confirm that pre-thought and more effective safety
management controls could have prevented the hazardous situations arising. Within Communications,
at the organisational level, one frequent call was for toolbox talks and for them specifically to address
cross-trade/-contractor issues.
Whilst the depth of insight gained from the survey is considerable, obtaining notifier details and
establishing contact were extremely time consuming processes. However, by comparing the
consistency in response profiles emerging at intervals through the project, it has been shown that
containing the survey to around 1000 notifiers gives a robust and stable picture. It is therefore
recommended that the knowledge from the survey be used to inform a smaller survey to be conducted
for a subset of construction notifiers alongside the original notification in future.
iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 SURVEY PROFILE 2
1.3 DATASET 3
1.4 REPORT LAYOUT 8
2 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION 11
2.1 QUESTION 1 – TYPE OF PROJECT 11
2.2 QUESTION 2 – CDM 14
2.3 QUESTION 3 – CLIENT’S BUSINESS 16
2.4 QUESTION 4 – SIZE OF THE PROJECT 20
2.5 QUESTION 5 – OTHER COMPANIES INVOLVED 24
3 NOTIFIER’S ROLE / POSITION 29
3.1 QUESTION 6 – COMPANY’S ROLE 29
3.2 QUESTION 7 – CONDITIONS OF JOB 33
3.3 QUESTION 8 – METHOD STATEMENTS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS 37
3.4 QUESTION 9 – NOTIFYING COMPANY SIZE 39
3.5 QUESTION 10 – NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SITE 41
3.6 QUESTION 11 – SAFETY INDUCTIONS 42
3.7 QUESTION 12 – SIZE OF SITE 43
4 THE INJURED PARTY 45
4.1 QUESTION 13 – LENGTH OF IP EMPLOYMENT 45
4.2 QUESTION 14 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS 47
4.3 QUESTION 15 – TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT WORK 51
4.4 QUESTION 16 – IP TRADE 52
4.5 QUESTION 17 – LENGTH OF TIME IN TRADE 53
4.6 QUESTION 18 – TRAINING QUALIFICATIONS 55
5 THE ACCIDENT 57
5.1 QUESTION 19 – LENGTH OF TIME ON SITE 57
5.2 QUESTION 20 – HOURS WORKED 59
5.3 QUESTION 21 – TASK INVOLVED 60
v
5.4 QUESTION 22 – SPECIFIC ACTIVITY INVOLVED 61
5.5 QUESTION 23 – SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS 65
6 QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK 75
6.1 RATING OF RESPONSES 75
6.2 FEEDBACK 76
7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 79
7.1 TYPE OF PROJECT 79
7.2 SIZE OF SITE 82
7.3 PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR 86
7.4 EMPLOYER SIZE 87
7.5 APPLICATION OF CDM 89
7.6 VALIDATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SELF EMPLOYED INJURED
PERSONNEL 98
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 103
8.1 OVERVIEW 103
8.2 CONCLUSIONS 103
8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 105
9 REFERENCES 107
APPENDIX A PRINT OUT OF QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIX B NOTIFIERS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION
vi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 B
ACKGROUND
BOMEL was commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive “to obtain comparable or better data
analysis of influences on major and over 3-day accidents in construction similar to that available for
fatal accidents”.
The objectives of the project were:
1. To analyse a statistically representative sample of accidents and draw conclusions beyond

that available from analysis of current RIDDOR data
2. To obtain additional data on major and over 3-day injury accidents
3. To evaluate the accuracy of construction accident report data
4. To inform the RIDDOR review, particularly in respect of Construction Division needs.
The focus was on major and over-3-day injury accidents in 2001/2 reported via the new Incident
Contact Centre (ICC). The approach to obtaining more information about reported accidents was to
contact notifiers by telephone and ask a series of structured questions. BOMEL’s work was
undertaken through the second half of 2002 and notified accidents were taken at random working back
through the database from 31 March 2002 to minimise difficulties with recall and movement of
personnel.
Accident records were supplied to BOMEL from HSE’s Field Operations Directorate from their
FOCUS data system. The data were provided via this route for expediency but had not yet been
subject to the checking that HSE’s statistics division would normally apply. The accident records do
not hold notifier details within the database and these had to be extracted manually, accident by
accident, from the web viewer onto the ICC database. BOMEL consolidated both datasets into a
Microsoft (MS) Access database system.
In the course of recent fatal accident investigations, HSE had sought specific information additional to
that required on the RIDDOR Form F2508. The information to be covered in this study was
comparable and covered:
• General site information
• Notifier’s role / position
• The injured party
• The accident.
A questionnaire was compiled and structured for use in a telephone survey in accordance with Market
Research Society guidelines. The questionnaire was built into the MS Access database for
contemporaneous completion and to enable an integrated analysis of the questionnaire responses with
basic RIDDOR / FOCUS information. Responses as given and as subsequently categorised are
retained in the database. The questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A showing the flow of
questions. This was reviewed and approved by HSE’s Project Officer at the outset.
An important principle in conducting surveys of this type is for it not to be a burden on participants.
Recognising this, the scope of questions was limited and the questionnaire was piloted internally and
externally. This process was beneficial and categories were clarified and a few questions were
reordered. The pilot, however, demonstrated the viability of the approach, the willingness of industry
to assist and the additional insight to causes of construction accidents that the process would afford.
Considering the principles of good survey practice, it was agreed with HSE not to be appropriate to
call notifiers about cases which had already been subject to HSE investigation or to call notifiers
repeatedly to discuss different accidents.
1.2 SURVEY PROFILE
1.2.1 A study of notified accidents
It should be emphasised that this study related to major and over-3-day injury accidents notified under
RIDDOR. Results must be interpreted in this context so that the safety performance of sectors of the
industry which are better at reporting is not unfairly represented.
1.2.2 Exclusion of investigated accidents
The reasons for investigation can be many, nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that the more
serious accidents will have been investigated and there is therefore the possibility that, by excluding
investigated accidents, the sample is biased slightly towards less serious major or over-3-day injury
cases.
1.2.3 Exclusion of repeated notifiers
Some larger companies / public bodies have a central point for accident reporting. By electing not to
repeatedly call a notifier (to avoid being burdensome) means the relative contribution of these
organisations to the survey (which could employ many people or have poor safety performance) is less
than to the underlying statistics. The separate source data systems precluded a number of accidents
being reported by a notifier being located in one go and this situation could not therefore be tested
until data were consolidated in the BOMEL database.
1.2.4 Other exclusions
Where the accident related to fights between workers these were not followed up because of the
limited applicability to construction processes in general and the reluctance of notifiers to discuss
these issues.
1.2.5 Time of year
All the accident cases surveyed took place between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002 at the time
of year when external construction conditions are at their worst (cold, wet, wind) and when working
hours may be shorter than in summer. In a number of cases weather was a factor but this did not seem
to dominate the survey. HSE advice was to focus on one period to avoid an additional confounding
factor. Furthermore, concentrating at the latter end of the year was important to minimise the time
lapse between the notification and the survey to aid recall and minimise problems with people leaving
the company. By this period, the ICC system was not ‘new’ having been running for at least eight
months and any coding issues may be considered to be reasonably representative of ongoing practice.
1.2.6 Process
Each notifier was contacted by telephone and asked to take part in this research into factors involved
in construction accidents to help achieve a reduction in the number of accidents occurring. A
questionnaire was compiled (see Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for the questions contained in the
questionnaire) and each notifier was surveyed using the questions listed. The information required by
HSE to be obtained from the notifier was as follows:
• Project status with respect to CDM
• The size and duration of site activity and the size of the contractor
• The nature of the construction project
• The type of main duty holder
• How long the injured person (IP) had been working on site and for his employer, usual
working hours on site, and whether this was the IP’s usual site (i.e. was he casual)
• The actual activity of the IP at the time of the accident
• How long the IP had practised his trade
• The IP’s employment status.
1.3 D
ATASET
BOMEL’s primary data source was the RIDDOR / FOCUS data supplied by FOD. On conclusion of
the study some 3235 records had been drawn into the survey sample. Eliminating cases that had been
subject to investigation by HSE, notifier details were obtained for 2942 cases from the ICC web
system case-by-case. Only once these were within BOMEL’s database system could notifier details
be compared between cases. To avoid re-contacting individual notifiers about different cases a
number of further cases were eliminated from the survey, as were misleading records, for example
repeated notifications of an accident by more than one party. Similarly cases were excluded where
ICC Incident Numbers were missing in the FOCUS records or casualty names conflicted between
FOCUS and the ICC F2508. It should be noted that the FOCUS data were supplied as provisional
and it must be anticipated that some of the apparent anomalies would be subject to correction prior to
publication of official statistics.
Of the 2942 records for which details were obtained, 1839 were released to BOMEL’s survey team
post-screening. Collating and screening of data were carried out in parallel with the conduct of the
survey. The final target of 1000 completed questionnaires was achieved (1004) when 1756 of the
1839 potential contacts had been made.
The initial target had been to sample 3000 cases. However, the exceptionally cumbersome route to
obtaining notifier details and the degree of pre-screening required had not been anticipated. In
addition, the time taken (number of calls) to make contact with even willing survey participants had
been underestimated. After the pilot study, the pattern of survey findings was compared at intervals
(421, 792 and 1004 completed questionnaires) to examine the extent of variation and robustness in
relation to sample size. Comparisons were made for all the questions from the three sample sizes and,
in summary, demonstrated a comparable pattern such that the final sample presented in this document
may be considered to be a robust representation of the notified accident profile.
Figure 1 shows the number of people contacted for this questionnaire was 1756. From this dataset
there are 1004 completed questionnaires and 752 uncompleted questionnaires. The information
derived from the completed questionnaires is discussed in Sections 2 - 6. The reasons given for the
uncompleted questionnaires are shown in Figure 2.
1200
1004
1000
800 752
Number of Questionnaires
600
400
200
0
Yes No
Figure 1 Number of Questionnaires Completed (1756 questionnaires)
300
250 244
200
Number of Notifiers
150
117
102
100 89
58
50 45 44
29
24
Wrong phone Called x times Left company Other non Not

Legal action Requested in Too busy Refused to help
no contact construction
writing / not
accident
over phone
Figure 2 Reasons for Uncompleted Questionnaires
As can be seen from Figure 2, the most common reason for uncompleted questionnaires is BOMEL
abandoning the case once attempts to contact the notifier exceeded four (32% of uncompleted
questionnaires). The procedure was that if a person / answering machine was reached a message was
left and BOMEL followed this up to a reasonable extent if calls were not returned. If there was no
answer, calls were repeated at different times of the day, again to a reasonable extent. The second
most common cause is the non-availability of the notifiers (e.g. wrong phone numbers (16%), leaving
the company (12%) and others where the notifier could not be reached (6%) - phone lines were dead,
phone numbers related to another company, the phone number lead to companies with no knowledge
of a person with the recorded notifier’s name, or the notifier person was off sick, injured, on maternity
leave, etc). Alternatives to the notifier were not consulted as their knowledge would be limited.
Around 3% of the cases were subject to legal action and it was agreed (by BOMEL, HSE and
notifiers) that participation in a survey of this type was not therefore appropriate at this stage.
After an initial discussion with the notifier it was found that 13% of cases were factory or
manufacturing type accidents, not site-based construction. BOMEL were not able (or required) to
validate the SIC coding but these cases were excluded as they would not help provide a more detailed
profile of typical construction accidents. Some 18% of uncompleted questionnaires were because of
notifiers refusing to help (4% wanted something in writing or the company policy was not to answer
questionnaires over the phone, 6% were too busy to help and 8% had other reasons for refusing).
Any resistance to the study is arguably reflected in the final two categories comprising 102 (44+58) of
the 1756 cases where contact was attempted, constituting less than 6% of the whole sample or around
10% of the 1004 successful contacts. Indeed, overall, the attitude of notifiers was constructive and
positive and, in a number of cases, notifiers welcomed the fact that the details were being looked at,
providing reassurance that RIDDOR was not just a reporting process.
The following figures are presented to demonstrate the degree to which the survey sample is
representative of the provisional accident data for 2001/2 data supplied to BOMEL for the study and
the final accident / injury statistics published by HSE as this study concluded(2).
Figure 3 shows, for the completed questionnaires, the number classified in FOCUS as major injury
accidents (35%) and over-3-day injury accidents (65%). Across all accidents in the preliminary
2001/2 database supplied to BOMEL, 35% of non-fatal accidents are major injuries and 65% are over-
3-day injury accidents (shown in Figure 4). However, the final figures for workers (employees and
self-employed) for 2001/2 which were published as this study concluded(2) showed 79 fatal accidents,
4480 major injury accidents and 9587 over-3-day injury accidents giving a lower major to over-3-day
injury ratio of 32:68 compared with 35:65 in the sample.
700
653
600
500
Number of Accidents
400
351
300
200
100
0
MAJOR INJURY OVER 3 DAY/MINOR
Figure 3 Ratio of Over-3-day and Major Accidents Surveyed (1004 Questionnaires)
9000 8657
8000
7000
6000
Total Number
5000 4764
4000
3000
2000
1000
96
0
Fatal Major Over 3 Day / Minor
Figure 4 Distribution of Report Types in Provisional Construction Database 2001/2

(13517 Accidents) (see Reference 2 for published statistics)
6
Of the 1004 accidents surveyed, the RIDDOR FOCUS categorisation shows 18% are to do with falls
from height, 28% slips or trips, 25% manual handling and 17% involving contact with or being hit by
an object. This is shown in Figure 5 and, compared to the distribution by accident kind in the overall
preliminary construction database for the year supplied to BOMEL in Figure 6, a reasonably similar
distribution can be seen.
300
278
253
250
200
Number of Accidents
173 177
150
100
50 37
32
15 16
8 7 5
2 1
0
Physically Assaulted
Hit by vehicle
Hit by fixed
Electricity
Hit by Object
Machinery
Manual Handling
Slip or Trip
Fall
Other
No Information
Trapped
Harmful Substance
Figure 5 Kind of Accident Surveyed (1004 Questionnaires)
3500 3314
3005
3000
2500 2348
2227
Total Number
2000
Major / Over-3-day
Fatal
1500
1000
519
500 373 383
235 273
78 121
46 1 2 13 11 2 38 4 31 46 21 1 7 13 38 7
0
Physically assaulted
Hit by Vehicle
Hit by Fixed
Manual Handling
Electricity
Hit by Object
Contact with
Fall
Drowned
Explosion
Slip or Trip
Fire
Trapped
Animal
Other
No Information
Harmful Substance
Machinery
Figure 6 Accident Kind in Provisional Overall Construction Database 2001/2

(13517 accidents)
7
Further comparison is made with the published statistics(2) in Table 1 showing the relation between
accident kind and injury severity from the published statistics. Clearly the first and final data columns
show the survey sample to be representative and the slight discrepancy is due in part to the slightly
higher proportion of major injury data in the sample (35% in the survey compared with 32% of the
published accidents) such that falls and slips and trips are slightly more significant and manual
handling slightly less so.
Table 1 Published Statistics by Accident Kind 2001/2(2)
Major and Over-3-day Injury Accidents

Accident Kind Survey Major Injury X Over-3-day X Published X
(workers) Accidents Injury Accidents
Falls from a Height * 18% 30% 10% 16%
Slips, trips or falls on the
28% 26% 22% 23%
same level
Struck by moving vehicle 1% 2% 1% 1%
Struck by moving /
17% 18% 16% 17%
falling object
Trapped by something
1% 0% 0% 0%
collapsing or overturning
Injured while handling,
25% 9% 35% 27%
lifting or carrying
Other 11% 14% 15% 15%
TOTAL 1004 workers 3959 employees 9013 employees 12972 employees
* Falls from a height include falls from up to and including 2 metres, over 2 metres and height not known.
X
From Reference 2. Note: Published data are for ‘employees’ whereas survey covers all ‘workers’. There were 1095 major
and over-3-day injuries to self employed for which kind data are not available in the published statistics – these constitute
less than 8% of worker accidents and therefore comparison is considered justifiable.
1.4 REPORT LAYOUT
Having established that the survey sample is broadly representative of the major and over-3-day injury
accidents reported, the main part of this report presents the more detailed information about the
accidents gleaned from the questionnaires (Appendix A).
In general it should be noted that the categorisation reflects distinct areas definable and meaningful
within the construction context, generally as provided by HSE. There is no expectation that the
volume of activity, number of people involved, level of risk etc are equal or therefore that the number
of responses in each category should be equal. Identifying areas where significant numbers of people
are affected, however, will help in targeting action.
In the following sections (Sections 2-6) the question asked is shown in italics and a graph showing the
responses to each question is presented with a discussion of the results. The responses to questions are
also combined to give a more detailed analysis of the data gathered. For example, to examine what
kinds of project involve weekend work, combines responses from Question 1 (type of project) and
Question 4b (weekend working included).
Section 7 presents a discussion of the findings to indicate the type of insight to be gleaned. Section 8
presents conclusions and recommendations.
10
2 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
2.1 QUESTION 1 – TYPE OF PROJECT
Could we begin by confirming some basic details about the type of construction project where the
accident occurred:
Part a)
Was it a civil engineering project; or road works; domestic housing; industrial facilities; commercial
property; or something else?:
400
360
350
300
250
Number of Notifiers
233
200
150
110
97
100
77 77
50
50
0
Civil Engineering Commercial Domestic Housing Industrial Facilities Road Works Public Buildings Other
Project Property
Figure 7 Question 1a – Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 7 the most significant project type where notified accidents occurred
related to domestic housing (36%). The least number of accidents was in relation to industrial
facilities (8%) and road works (8%). Further demographic data on numbers involved in different
aspects of construction activity would be needed to investigate relative risks. The ‘other’ category
contains, for example:
• Transmitter building
• Relocation of portable buildings
• Incubator for botanical gardens
• Site for a skip
• Underground work
• Preparation for a half marathon.
11
Part b)
And was it new-build / construction; or site preparation; M&E fit out; refurbishment; maintenance /
repair; demolition; or something else?:
500
451
450
400
350
Number of Notifiers
300
275
250
200
192
150
100
50
34
10 16 10 11
5
0
Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not applicable
Repair Construction Preparation
Figure 8 Question 1b – Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 8, more notified accidents occur in the new-build / construction category
(45%), while less than 20 accidents occurred on a site at the time of site preparation (1%), demolition
(1%) or designated as M&E fit out (1.5%). Some of the latter however are of relatively short duration.
The other significant areas are refurbishment (27%) and maintenance / repair (19%). ‘Other’ includes,
for example:
• Fixing a head stone
• Moving location.
12
180 170
160
140
Number of Notifiers
120
105 104
100
83
80
66
60
60 50
45
40 34
28 28
23
14 17 15 16 16 16
20 10 11
6 7 7 9 7 6 5
1 4 1 1 3 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
0
Public Buildings
Civil Engineering Project
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Industrial Facilities
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not
Repair Construction Preparation applicable
Figure 9 Comparison of Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 9 combines the information from Question 1a and 1b on project type and shows that domestic
housing new-build / construction is the most significant category (17%), with commercial new-build /
construction (10%) and domestic housing refurbishment (10%) being second, followed by commercial
property refurbishment (8%), domestic housing maintenance / repair (7%), civil engineering new build
(6%), and public building new build (5%). Further information on activity levels is needed to compare
risk.
However, as a pointer to areas for reducing accident numbers from amongst those notified, it is clear
that new-build domestic housing is a key area.
13
2.2 QUESTION 2 – CDM
Did CDM [the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations] apply?
700
627
600
500
Number of Notifiers
400
300 287
200
90
100
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 10 Question 2 – CDM Applicability (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen in Figure 10, in the majority of cases, 62%, the CDM Regulations applied to the work
being carried out, while 29% of notifiers stated that the CDM Regulations did not apply. There were
9% of people surveyed who did not know if CDM Regulations applied. This could be a function of
not recalling or not knowing whether CDM applied – notifiers from some companies are central
administrators without direct project involvement.
14
Figure 11 shows the type of projects where the notifier stated CDM did not apply. The main areas
where CDM was thought not to apply were maintenance / repair (domestic housing, roadworks and
commercial property) and refurbishment (domestic housing and commercial property). There were
few new-build / construction projects (30 or 7% of this project type) where CDM was said not to have
applied. Further consideration to CDM applicability is given in Section 7.5.
50
45
43 43
40
35
Number of Notifiers
30
25
25
18 19
20
15
12
10 11
10
8 7 7
5 5 6 6 6 6 5
4 4 4 4 4
5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings

Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / Repair New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not
Construction Preparation applicable
Figure 11 Type of Projects where CDM was said not to apply (287 Questionnaires)
15
2.3 QUESTION 3 – CLIENT’S BUSINESS
Part a)
What was the nature of the Client's business?:
300
250 241
212
200
Number of Notifiers
150
100
67 68
58
53
45 42 46
50 35 35 36
26
16 14 10
0
Property
Utilities
Retail
Education
Public Services
Industrial
Leisure
Construction
Services Sector
Unknown
Other
Manufacturing
Home owner
LA / Government
Transport
Commercial
Figure 12 Question 3a – Nature of Client’s Business (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 12 shows that the largest category of clients is Property Developers (24%) and Local
Authorities / Government Departments (21%). Some 7% of clients are homeowners, 7% provide a
public service (NHS, highways, hospitals, environment, police, prisons, charities and MOD / military),
5% of clients are concerned with utilities (water, electricity, gas, communications), and 5% of clients
are involved in the retail industry (shops, supermarkets). Some 6% of notifiers did not know (or
recall) the nature of the client’s business. The other category (1%) includes:
• Marine organisations
• Places of worship
• Quarrying
The services sector category includes law, accountancy, catering, car hire, insurance, training and
advertising firms. The transport category includes public transport undertaking such as railway
companies and London Transport.
16
Part b)
Was the Client: domestic / private co. / public sector:
600
568
500
400
Number of Notifiers
331
300
200
100
73
32
0
Domestic Private Co. Public Sector Unknown
Figure 13 Question 3b – Sector (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 13 shows that 56% of accidents, according to the notifiers’ responses, occur within the private
sector. From the responses, 33% of notified accidents occur in the public sector, 7% in the domestic
sector and 3% of notifiers did not know (or recall) which sector the client’s business was in. Here
there are 6 more domestic clients than ‘homeowners’ in Figure 12 due to other types of work being
done (e.g. fixing a head stone). Figure 14, compares the sector to the type of project and shows that
the most common type of project is domestic housing and commercial property in the private sector.
250
195
200 185
Number of Notifiers
150
100 91
80
73
67 62 63
50 38
34
25
13 15 12 13
6 10 7 6
3 3 1 2
0
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Other
Other
Other
Other

Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Figure 14 Sector Compared to Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
17
Part c)
[If domestic] Did this domestic client have a property developer involved?
50
46
45
40
35
Number of Notifiers
30
25 23
20
15
10
5 4
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 15 Question 3c – Property Developer (73 Questionnaires)
The 73 notifiers who stated the Client was domestic, were asked if a property developer was involved
in the work being done. The majority of those notifiers, 63% stated that a property developer was not
involved and 32% did not know if the client had a property developer involved, while only 5%
involved a property developer. This is shown in Figure 15. Figure 16 compares the response given by
the notifiers with a domestic client when asked if CDM applied and whether a property developer was
involved. The majority of notifiers stated that CDM did not apply and their domestic client did not
have a property developer involved. In only one case was a property developer involved and the
notifier said CDM did not apply. CDM applicability is discussed further in Section 7.5.
40
36
35
30
Number of Notifiers
25
20
15 14
10
5 5 5
5 4
3
1
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
No
No
Unknown
CDM
applies
Property
Developer No Yes Unknown
Figure 16 CDM Application Compared to Use of a Property Developer (73 Questionnaires)
18
Part d)
[If unclear to questioner] Would you say this client regularly commissions construction work?
700
654
600
500
Number of Notifiers
400
300
200
133
105 112
100
0
One-off Occasional Repeat Unknown
Figure 17 Question 3d – Repeat Construction Client (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 17 shows for the majority of notified construction accidents surveyed the clients regularly
commission construction work (65%). Only 11% occasionally commission construction work and for
13% of clients this project was a ‘one-off’ construction project. Around 11% of notifiers did not know
whether the client regularly commissioned construction work.
19
2.4 QUESTION 4 – SIZE OF THE PROJECT
Part a)
So we can get a feel for the size of the project, do you know how long (over what period) work was
going on at the site altogether?
Figure 18 Question 4a – Length of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 18 uses the categories supplied by HSE, although it should be noted that the intervals are not
equal. The category with the largest number of accidents is for projects lasting 6 months or more but
less than 12 months (15%). The number of accidents for work lasting less than a day (7%) or a day or
more but less than a week (11%) is considerable, although knowledge of the distribution of
construction projects is needed before the relative risk can be examined. There are a number of
projects over 5 years and ongoing contracts (5%). Figure 19 compares the length of the project to the
type and it is evident that it is maintenance and repair that is principally associated with shorter
durations. Within the BOMEL database actual responses are also recorded so that further analysis
without the category constraints is possible.
Figure 19 Length of Project Compared to Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
20
Part b)
[If 4-6 weeks] Did that include weekend working?
500
450 436
400 379
350
Number of Notifiers
300
250
200
150
99
100 90
50
0
No Yes Unknown Not Applicable
Figure 20 Question 4b – Weekend Working (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 20 shows that many projects do not include weekend working (43%) but the number which do
include weekend working (38%) is not insignificant. The responses also indicated that a range of
‘weekend’ working is involved:
• Occasional weekend work, when necessary

• Weekend work towards the end of the project (when deadlines are tight)
• Saturday morning only
• Saturday only
• All weekend
There were 10% of notifiers who did not know if the project contained weekend work and 9% where
the question was not applicable (i.e. very short duration jobs).
21
Figure 21 shows the type of projects which involve weekend working. The main projects involving
weekend working are new-build / construction projects including domestic housing (18%),
commercial property (14%) and civil engineering projects (10%) and commercial property
refurbishment projects (12%). The other areas are concerned with the new-build / construction of
public buildings (7%), industrial facilities (6%) and refurbishment of domestic houses (5%). Despite
there being few road works projects overall (see Figure 7) they dominate maintenance / repair
activities undertaken at the weekend. For comparison Figure 9 gave the overall distribution of project
types for the 1004 completed questionnaires, irrespective of work pattern.
80
70 68
60
54
Number of Notifiers
50 46
39
40
30 26
22
20 17
12 13
11
10 8 8
5 5 6
3 4
1 1 1 2 3 3 3
1 2 1 1
3
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Other
Other
Other
Other
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
DemolitionM&E Mantenance
i / Repair New-build / Construction Other Refurbishment Site Preparation Unknown Not
Fit Out applicable
Figure 21 Projects Involving Weekend Working (379 Questionnaires)
22
Part c)
And was there night work?
900
800 781
700
600
Number of Notifiers
500
400
300
200
97
100 73
53
0
No Yes Unknown Not Applicable
Figure 22 Question 4c – Night Work (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 22 shows that 78% projects do not involve night work and 7% of projects do involve night
work. The main types of project which involve night work, shown in Figure 23, are new-build /
construction civil engineering and commercial property projects and maintenance / repair road works
projects. Whereas domestic housing was significant with respect to weekend work, there is little night
working.
12
10
10
9
8
Number of Notifiers
6 6
6
4
4
3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings

Other
Other
Other
Other
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Demolition Maintenance / Repair New-build / Construction Other Refurbishment Site Unknown Not
Preparation applicable
Figure 23 Projects Involving Night Work (73 Questionnaires)
23
2.5 QUESTION 5 – OTHER COMPANIES INVOLVED
Part a)
[If 2 = Yes] Is the planning supervisor (company) independent (client, principal contractor,
consultant, other) or in-house?:
400
350 341
300
250
Number of Notifiers
200
160
150
122
100
50
4
0
Independent In-house Other Unknown
Figure 24 Question 5a – Planning Supervisor (627 Questionnaires)
Figure 24 shows that of the projects where CDM was said to apply (627 incidents), 54% have an
independent planning supervisor and 26% have an in-house planning supervisor. 19% of notifiers
surveyed did not know the origin of the planning supervisor.
24
Part b)
How many companies were in the design / engineering team?:
300
279
250
200
Number of Notifiers
150
142
100
70
50
50
41
16 14
1 4 3 2 3 2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 35 Unknown
999
Number of Companies
Figure 25 Question 5b – Design / Engineering Team (627 Questionnaires)
Figure 25 shows that, of the projects where CDM was said to apply, 23% of the projects involved only
one company in the design and engineering team. The graph also shows 44% of the notifiers did not
know how many companies were in the design and engineering team. It is notable that some projects
appear to be very complex with up to 35 parties thought to be involved in the design / engineering
team.
25
Part c)
Do you know if the designer was an engineer or an architect?:
300
248
250
220
200
Number of Notifiers
150
105
100
50 44
10
0
Architect Engineer Both In-house Unknown
Figure 26 Question 5c – Type of Designer (627 Questionnaires)
Figure 26 shows, of the projects where CDM was said to apply, that 39% of projects were considered
to be designed by an architect, 17% by an engineer and 7% involving both an architect and engineer.
There were 36% of notifiers surveyed who did not know if the designer was an engineer or architect.
Also 2% of notifying companies stated that the designer was in-house.
26
The type of project is compared to the type of designer in Figure 27. It can be seen that the most
frequent combination is an architect being the designer for a new-build / construction project. The
most common projects where an engineer is the designer are also new-build / construction projects
followed by refurbishment. Where the design team involves both an engineer and an architect, again,
the most common type of project is a new-build / construction project.
200
180
173
160
140
Number of Notifiers
120
114
100
80
69
57 58
60
36
40
29
23
17
20
8
3 7 3 4 6 4 6
1 2 1 1 2 2 1
0
Maintenance / Repair
New-build / Construction
Not applicable
Not applicable
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
Demolition
M&E Fit Out
Refurbishment
M&E Fit Out
Refurbishment
Refurbishment
Refurbishment
M&E Fit Out
Refurbishment
Other
Other
Other
Architect Both Engineer In-house Unknown
Figure 27 Designer for Type of Projects (648 Questionnaires)
27
28
3 NOTIFIER’S ROLE / POSITION
3.1 QUESTION 6 – COMPANY’S ROLE
Part a)
What was your company's role at the site?:
250
227
200
Number of Notifiers
150
129
121
111
100
74
67
51 51
50 44
34 36
24 22
13
0
Foundations / Civils
Roofing / Ceiling /
Fit out
M&E
Developer
Plant
Unknown
Finishes
Scaffolding
Other
Streetworks
General Contractor
Frame / Floors
Groundworks /
Refurbishment /
Glazing
Figure 28 Question 6a – Role of Notifying Company (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 28 shows the notifying company’s role on site. As can be seen from the graph, the role of 23%
of companies is as a general contractor, 13% as refurbishment / maintenance / repair, 12% as M&E
(including HVAC, plumbing and electrics) and 11% as groundworks / foundation / civils. The less
frequent roles of notifier companies where accidents occur are plant (1%), fit out (including
partitioning, dry lining, WCs etc) (2%), scaffolding (3%), streetworks (4%), frames / floors (4%),
roofing / ceiling / glazing (5%), and finishes (including joinery, plastering, floor finishes) (5%). Some
2% of notifiers do not know what their company’s role was on site.
29
Part b)
So you were: the principal contractor / a contractor / a subcontractor / a nominated subcontractor?:
400
350 341
324
300
250
Number of Notifiers
203
200
150
110
100
50
26
0
Principal Contractor Contractor Subcontractor Nominated Subcontractor Unknown
Figure 29 Question 6b – Notifier’s Role (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 29 shows that the majority of notifiers were the Principal Contractor (34%) on the project
where the accident occurred, while 32% were subcontractors, 20% were contractors, 3% were
nominated subcontractors and 11% did not know the relationship between their company and who
they were contracted to.
30
Part c)
Who were you contracted to and was their role as? client / principal contractor / contractor:
600
560
500
400
Number of Notifiers
311
300
200
101
100
32
Client Principa
l Contractor Contractor Unknown
Figure 30 Question 6c – Chain of Contracting (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 30 shows that 56% of notifiers were contracted directly to the Client, while 31% were
contracted to the Principal Contractor, 3% to a contractor and 10% did not know the relationship
between their company and who they were contracted to. Summarising the previous two figures,
Figure 31 shows that the majority of notifying companies are Principal Contractors contracted directly
to the Client. The next major category is subcontractors contracted to Principal Contractors followed
by Contractors contracted directly to the Client.
350
313
300
252
250
Number of Notifiers
200
160
150
100
51 49
50 32 32
28 25
15 20
3 8 4 7 3
1 1
0
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Client
Client
Client
Client
Client
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Principal
Principal
Principal
Principal
Contracted to
Notifying Principal Contractor Subcontractor Nominated Subcontractor Unknown

Company Contractor
Figure 31 Chain of Contracting (1004 Questionnaires)
31
Part d)
[If c is contractor] What was the contract chain from there to the client?
350
319
300
250
Number of Notifiers
200
150
100
50
21
3
0
Client Principal Contractor to Client Unknown
Figure 32 Question 6d – Contracting Chain (343 Questionnaires)
Of the companies contracted to a Principal Contractor or Contractor in Question 6c (Figure 30), Figure
32 shows the chain of contracting to the client. Figure 79 shows the complete chain of contracting
from the notifying company to the client. The graph shows that the majority of contracting chains are
associated with notified accidents are two tier. The most frequent pattern with which accidents are
notified is where the notifier is the Principal Contractor and contracted directly to the client (31%) or
the notifier is a subcontractor contracted to the Principal Contractor contracted to the client (25%).
32
3.2 QUESTION 7 – CONDITIONS OF JOB
Part a)
Were there any special / unusual conditions which applied to the work, e.g. Fixed price, Lump Sum,
Day Rate, Penalty Clauses for Late Delivery or Reference to Health and Safety in the Contract?
500
450 429
398
400
350
Number of Notifiers
300
250
200
150 130
100
47
50
0
Fixed Price Lump Sum Day Rate Other Payment
Figure 33 Question 7a – Payment Conditions (1004 Questionnaires)
900
800 783
700
600
Number of Notifiers
500
400
300
221
200
100
0
Yes
1 No
2
Figure 34 Penalty Clauses for Late Delivery in the Contract (1004 Questionnaires)
33
700
642
600
500
Number of Notifiers
400
362
300
200
100
0
Yes
1 No
2
Figure 35 References to Health and Safety in the Contract (1004 Questionnaires)
The notifier could pick more than one special or unusual condition that applied to their contract (which
is why the percentages add up to more than 100%). Figure 33 shows 40% of contracts were based on
fixed price payments for the work, 13% were based on day rates, 5% were lump sum and 43% were
based on other methods of payment (such as schedule of rates, etc). Figure 34 shows that 22% of
contracts included penalty clauses for late delivery. Figure 35 indicates that 64% of respondees stated
that references to health and safety were included in their contract.
34
Part b)
In terms of timescale, was the job ‘more demanding’, ‘pretty average’ or ‘reasonably comfortable’?:
450
400 384
356
350
300
Number of Notifiers
250
200
150 134 130
100
50
0
More Demanding Pretty Average Reasonably Comfortable Unknown
Figure 36 Question 7b – Timescale (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 36, in terms of timescale the biggest category of notifiers considered the
job pretty average (38%), compared to 35% of notifiers who considered the job reasonably
comfortable relative to their normal contracts. The job was considered more demanding by 13% of
notifiers and 13% did not know the time pressures on the job.
35
Part c)
In terms of financial return, was it ‘good’, ‘average’ or ‘particularly poor’?:
500
472
450
400
350
321
Number of Notifiers
300
250
200
150 129
100 82
50
0
Particularly Poor Average Good Unknown
Figure 37 Question 7c – Financial (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 37 shows there were 47% of notifiers who considered the financial return on the project relative
to their normal business to be average, while 13% rated the profitability as good, 8% rated the
profitability as particularly poor and 32% did not know the financial pressures of the project.
From the answers to these questions it cannot be argued that the jobs where accidents are notified are
any more pressured from time or cost perspectives than the ‘average’.
36
3.3 QUESTION 8 – METHOD STATEMENTS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS
Part a)
Were method statements and risk assessments available for the work on site?
1000
928
900
800
700
Number of Notifiers
600
500
400
300
200
100
54
22
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 38 Question 8a – Method Statements and Risk Assessment Available

(1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 38 shows that 93% of notifiers said that method statements and risk assessments were available
for the work on site, but 5% said there were none and 2% of notifiers do not know. Figure 39 shows
that the most common project which does not have risk assessments or method statements available is
domestic housing refurbishment projects, followed by domestic housing maintenance / repair projects
and commercial refurbishment projects. The numbers are, however, small for statistical significance.
14
13
12
10
Number of Notifiers
8
7
6
6
4 4
4
3
2 2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0

Public Buildings
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Other
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Other
Domestic Housing
M&E Fit Out Maintenance / Repair New-build Other

/ Refurbishment Site Unknown Not applicable
Construction Preparation
Figure 39 Types of Projects Which Do Not Have Method Statements and Risk
Assessments (54 Questionnaires)
37
Part b)
If so, would you say they were up-to-date?
1000
890
900
800
700
Number of Notifiers
600
500
400
300
200
100
26 12
0
No Unknown Yes
Figure 40 Question 8b – Method Statements and Risk Assessments up to Date

Of the 928 cases which have Method Statements and Risk Assessments, the majority (96%) of
notifiers said the Risk Assessments and Method Statements were kept up to date, while 3% said they
were not and 1% did not know. This is shown in Figure 40. Several respondees noted that they were
generic rather than specific to the particular job.
38
3.4 QUESTION 9 – NOTIFYING COMPANY SIZE
Part a)
Within your firm, how many people do you employ (in the UK) in total?:
450
404
400
350
300
Number of Notifiers
250
203
200
150 137
100 86
67 63
44
50
0
1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown
Figure 41 Question 9a – Number of Employees in Notifying Company

As can be seen from Figure 41, the most common size of company where accidents occur, using the
HSE designated size categories, is between 50 and 499 employees (40%) and a company size of more
than 500 (20%) is the second most common. The least common size of company is between 20 and 24
employees (4%). 9% of notifiers did not know how many people their company employed in the UK
but in many cases these were large companies with recognisable construction company names thus
potentially explaining why the notifier was uncertain as to numbers. Actual numbers are recorded in
BOMEL’s database enabling alternatives to HSE’s categories to be examined, if required. The large
end also includes notifying Local Authorities where the employee numbers are considerable but the
construction activity may be a small part.
39
Part b)
What proportion are staff employees?
500
450
440
400
350
Number of Notifiers
300
250
200
157
150
100
84
56
41 44 37 44
50 34
25 27
15
0
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100 Unknown
Figure 42 Question 9b – Percentage of Staff Employees (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 42 shows that a high proportion of notifying companies directly employ all their workers
(44%). 16% of notifying companies did not know what percentage of employees were directly
employed (staff employees).
40
3.5 QUESTION 10 – NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SITE
Turning to the site at the time of the accident, how many people working through your company were
on site?:
200
181
180
160
140
121
Number of Notifiers
120
97
100
79
80
64 66
60
46 47
40
40 35
28 30
21
17 18
20 12
9 11
8 7 7 6 7
5 3 1 4 4
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
100
106
125
130
140
150
175
180
200
250
300
380
400
700
800
1100
999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
23
24
25
30
32
35
36
40
41
42
43
45
50
55
60
70
80
90
95
Ukn
Figure 43 Question 10 – People on Site (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 43 shows that the most common number of people working for the notifying company on a
particular site at the time of the notified accident is 2 people (18%) or 3 people (12%). There were 7%
of notifying companies which did not know the number of people working for their company on a
particular site. Grouping the results and presenting them in Figure 44, clearly shows that the majority
of companies where notified accidents take place have between 1 and 10 representatives working on
site (69%), whereas less than 0.3% of companies have over 500 workers on site. Comparison with
Figure 41 implies that notifying companies are generally running multi-site work activities.
800
689
700
600
500
Number of Notifiers
400
300
200
100 76 66 66
50 54
3
0
1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown
Figure 44 Grouped People Working on Site (1004 Questionnaires)
41
3.6 QUESTION 11 – SAFETY INDUCTIONS
Part a)
Were they all given a formal site safety induction?
900
806
800
700
600
Number of Notifiers
500
400
300
200 163
100
35
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 45 Question 11a – Safety Induction Given (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 45 shows that in 80% of cases where an accident has been notified, formal site safety
inductions have been given to the people working on site. However, in one case everyone on site had
been given a site safety induction apart from the injured person. In 16% of cases no formal site safety
inductions were given and 4% of notifiers did not know if an induction had taken place.
42
3.7 QUESTION 12 – SIZE OF SITE
Part a)
Do you know approximately how many people were on the site at the time altogether?:
400
350 342
300 292
250
Number of Notifiers
200
148
150
109
100
63
50 36
14
0
1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown
Figure 46 Question 12a – Number of People on Site (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 46, again using the HSE categories, shows the number of projects where accidents occur
having 1 to 10 people working on site is significant (34%), whereas 1% of projects have over 500
people working on site. 29% of notifiers did not know the total number of people working on a
particular site where an accident occurred. There are 15% of projects where 50 to 499 people work on
site, 11% where 25 to 49 people work, 6% where 11 to 19 and 4% where 20 to 24 people work on site.
The type of project where more than 500 people are on site is shown in Figure 47.
5
Number of Notifiers
1 1 1 1
1
0
Other Civil Engineering Commercial Property Road Works Other Commercial Property
Project
Demolition New-build / Construction Other Refurbishment
Figure 47 Projects Where There are More Than 500 People on Site (14 Questionnaires)
43
Part b)
[If <5] Were there ever 5 or more workers on site at any stage?
250
209
199
200
Number of Notifiers
150
118
100
50
No Yes Unknown
Figure 48 Question 12b – Five or More People on Site (527 Questionnaires)
If a notifier’s response to the previous question (12a) was less than 5 people working on a particular
site or unknown at the time of the incident, they were asked if there were ever 5 or more people on that
site at any stage. Figure 48 shows that in 40% of those cases there were always fewer than 5 people
on the site where an accident occurred. Some 22% of sites had 5 or more people on site at a particular
stage and 38% of notifiers did not know if there were more than 5 people on site at any stage.
44
4 THE INJURED PARTY

4.1 QUESTION 13 – LENGTH OF IP EMPLOYMENT
How long had IP been working with your company when the accident happened?:
Figure 49 Question 13 – Length of IP Employment (1004 Questionnaires)
The largest HSE designated category of people who had an accident had been working with the
company for more than 5 years (27%), whereas 0.3% of people had been working with the company
for less than 1 day when an accident occurred. This is shown in Figure 49. In 52% of cases, the IP
had been employed for less than 5 years but the degree of mobility typical within the industry needs to
be accounted for in interpreting this. Also, 6% of injured people were employed by a subcontractor or
a company other than the notifying company and 16% of notifiers did not know how long the injured
person had been working for the company. Figure 50 removes the categories and shows the length of
employment of the injured party in years.
45
250
203
200
157
Number of Notifiers
150
115
100 93
64
55 56
46 45
50
26 27
18 15 20
9 8 7 7 6
4 4 1 2 2 1 4 3 1 1 1 2 1
0
Unknown
<1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
24
25
27
28
30
36
40
41
42
Oth Comp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 50 Length of IP Employment in Years (1004 Questionnaires)
46
4.2 QUESTION 14 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS
Part a)
Would you say his employment status: was directly employed; self employed; or employed via an
agency?:
900
800 779
700
600
Number of Notifiers
500
400
300
200
136
100
33 36
20
0
Directly Employed Self Employed Employed by subcontractor Agency Employed Unknown
Figure 51 Question 14a – Employment Status (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 51 shows that 78% of injured people were said by the notifier to be directly employed by the
notifying company, while 13% were self-employed, 2% were employed via an agency and 3% were
employed by a subcontractor. 4% of notifiers did not know what the injured person’s employment
status was. Figure 52 compares the IP employment status with the notifier’s role.
300
248
250 240
200
183
Number of Notifiers
150
100 87
50 53
50
21 16 17 21
13 11 10 10
4 2 3 2 1 5 2 5
0
Contractor
Subcontractor
Contractor
Subcontractor
Unknown
Contractor
Subcontractor
Contractor
Subcontractor
Unknown
Contractor
Contractor
Subcontractor
Unknown
Contractor
Subcontractor
Contractor
Subcontractor
Unknown
Contractor
Subcontractor
Unknown
Principal
Principal
Principal
Principal
Principal
Nominated
Nominated
Nominated
Directly Employed Self Employed Employed by Agency Employed Unknown

subcontractor
Figure 52 IP Employment Status Compared with the Role of the Notifier

47
Part b)
How was he paid? Hourly / Weekly / Monthly / Lump Sum at end of project:
45
40
40
35
32
30 29
Number of Notifiers
25
20
17
15 14
10
5 4
0
Hourly Day rates Weekly Monthly Lump Sum Unknown
Figure 53 Question 14b – Payment Conditions (136 Questionnaires)
Of the injured people who were self-employed, 29% were paid weekly, 24% were paid hourly, 13%
were paid a lump sum at the end of the project, 10% were paid daily and 3% were paid monthly. 21%
of notifiers did not know how the self-employed injured person was paid. This is all displayed in
Figure 53.
48
Part c)
Did he receive instructions from the site foreman or did he work on his own?:
120
99
100
80
Number of Notifiers
60
40
20 15
11
9
2
0
From Foreman Own Work Production Group Supervisor Unknown
Figure 54 Question 14c – Responsibility / Line Management (136 Questionnaires)
Figure 54 shows that, of the injured people who were self-employed, 85% received their instructions
from personnel in authority (73% site foreman, 11% supervisor, 2% production group), while 8%
carried out their own work (or were the person in authority). Around 7% of notifiers did not know
who the injured person took instruction from for their work. Those taking instruction from others are
working effectively as employees.
49
Part d)
Did he have a contract FOR services or a contract OF service?:
120
107
100
80
Number of Notifiers
60
40
21
20
0
FOR Services OF Service Unknown
Figure 55 Question 14d – Contract Conditions (136 Questionnaires)
Of the injured people who were self-employed, 79% had a contract for services (a contract to provide
personnel, which may be oneself, for a service) and 15% had a contract of service (a contract to
provide oneself for service). The former category, strictly applied, reflects true self-employed status.
Some 6% of notifiers did not know the type of contract the injured person had with the company.
50
4.3 QUESTION 15 – TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT WORK
Did his job fall into any of the following categories: fixed period contract; seasonal work; agency
temping; casual work; or some other temporary work?:
800
742
700
600
500
Number of Notifiers
400
300
200 167
100
39
17 25
11 2 1
0
Permanent Fixed Period Agency temping Casual Work Seasonal Work Trainee Other temporary Unknown
Contract work
Figure 56 Question 15 – Temporary or Permanent Work (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 56, the majority of injured people had a permanent contract of
employment (74%). There are 4% of injured people employed under a fixed period contract, 2% were
temping via an agency, 1% were casual workers, 0.2% were seasonal workers, one was a trainee
(0.1%) and 2% had some other form of temporary contract. Some 16% of notifiers did not know if the
injured person was temporary or permanent.
51
4.4 QUESTION 16 – IP TRADE
What is IP’s trade?
140
131
128
120
100
Number of Notifiers
82
79
80
71
62
60
47
41 40
40 33
29
24 26 25
18 16 18
20 15 14 13
9 8 8 10
5 7
2 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
0
SERVICE/PIPES
BRICKLAYER/MASO
BARBENDER/FIXER
GLASS/CERAMIC
CRANE DRIVERS
DESPATCH CLERKS
ENGINE/ELEC
SCAFFOLD/STEEPLE
CLEANERS
BUILDING LABOUR
GOODS DRIVER
PAVIORS
SCIENTIFIC/BUIL
PLUMBER/HEATING
CARPENTER/JOINER
GARDENER
PLASTERER
Surveyor/Planner
TRANS/MANAGERS
ENGINEER/TECHNO
OTH SERVICE
PAINTER/DECORATE
PLASTICS
REFUSE
SECURITY
CABLE JOINTER
FORK LIFT DRIVER
Glazier
STEEL ERECTOR
BUILDER
Other Building
Maintain Fitter
OTHER MANUAL
METAL MACHINING
ROOFER
SCIENTIFIC/ENG
Oth Mach/Plant
OTHER MISC
Plant Drivers
Oth Associate
FLOORER
OTH LABOUR
OTH/TRANS/MACH
ELECTRIC FITTER
Oth Construction
OTH MACHINING
OTH
ROAD CONSTRUCT
Rail Construct
Construction
Crafts Mates
Product/Managers
WELDERS
OTHER WOOD
Wood Trades
Figure 57 Question 16 – IP Trade (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 57 shows the injured person’s trade, correctly categorised (as per FOCUS categorisations). As
can be seen from the graph, the trades where more notified accidents occur are in ‘other construction’
trades (13%), carpentry / joinery (13%), other building trades (8%), bricklaying / masonry (8%),
electrical fitting (7%), plumbing / heating (6%), road construction (4%), scaffolding / steeplejack
(4%), and roofing (3%). The trades, as stated by the notifiers, included in significant general
categories, such as ‘other construction’ are as follows:
Category Includes
Oth Construction (Craft and Labourer, Asbestos removal, General operative, Fitter, Concrete
related manual operations) cutter, Multi-skilled labourer, General construction worker
Oth Mach / Plant (Plant and Plant or machine operator
machine operatives)
Other Building (Other Ground worker, Building operative, Fire protection installer
occupations, construction)
Other Manual (Other Multi-trades, Assembly team member, Insulation installer
Other Misc (Other Land drainage worker, Blaster, Duct layer
52
4.5 QUESTION 17 – LENGTH OF TIME IN TRADE
Do you know how long he's been in that trade?:
Figure 58 Question 17 – Length of Time in Trade (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 58, using HSE designated categories, the majority of injured people had
accidents when they had been in their trade for over 5 years (56%). The graph also shows 27% of
notifiers did not know how long the injured person had been in their trade. The time in a trade, where
few accidents occur are 2-3 years (4%), 3-4 years (3%), 4-5 years (3%) and 12-18 months (3%). The
length of time in trade where least accidents occur is 1-2 weeks (0.3%) but clearly this is the shortest
duration category for an individual. Figure 59 shows the times in trade by year. Concentration around
5 year intervals is understandable given the indicative estimates being provided by notifiers.
50 48
45
40
35
35
Number of Notifiers
30 28
26
25
21
20
16 16 16
15 13 13
12
10
10 8
5
5 4
3 3 3 3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
<1 year
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.2
3.5
4.5
9.6
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19.2
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
35
37
40
41
43
50
52
1
5
6
7
8
9
Time in Years
Figure 59 Length of Time in Trade
53
Figure 60 and Figure 61 show the top 10 most common trades compared to the length of time the
injured person was in their trade, where known (as shown in Figure 57). The pattern is broadly similar
to Figure 57 differing only because the time in trade for general categories is more frequently
unknown and therefore relatively under-reported in this sample. These figures should be viewed with
caution in that a worker in the industry from 16-65 has one period with <5 years experience but nine
times longer in the >5 years bracket. Further interpretation could be made with IP age, for example.
Figure 60 Length of Time in a Top 10 Accident Trades (475 Questionnaires)
Figure 61 Top 10 Accident Trades and Length of Time in Trade (475 Questionnaires)
54
4.6 QUESTION 18 – TRAINING QUALIFICATIONS
Did he have relevant training qualifications or a CSCS card or equivalent, for example, that you are
aware?
700
600 582
500
Number of Notifiers
400
300
239
200 183
100
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 62 Question 18 – Training Qualifications (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 62 shows that 58% of injured people are said to have relevant training qualifications, 24% of
injured people do not have any training qualifications and 18% of notifiers do not know if the injured
person had any relevant training qualifications. Figure 63 shows the comparison between the trade of
the injured person and whether or not he had training qualifications. The occupations where
qualifications are limited are general categories such as building labour, other construction, other
manual whereas the proportion of workers qualified is greater for trades such as bricklaying,
carpentry, electrical fitter, plumbing, scaffolding etc.
55
Number of Notifiers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
BARBENDER/FIXER
16
BRICKLAYER/MASO
38
43
BUILDER
18
BUILDING LABOUR
20
1
CABLE JOINTER
24
CARPENTER/JOINE
71
CLEANERS
3
Construction
12 2 1
Crafts Mates
5
CRANE DRIVERS
1
DESPATCH CLERKS
14
ELECTRIC FITTER
51
ENGINE/ELEC
12 2
ENGINEER/TECHNO
12
FLOORER
FORK LIFT DRIVER
GARDENER
2 3 2 1
GLASS/CERAMIC
Glazier
GOODS DRIVER
14
45 4 3
9
Maintain Fitter
1
METAL MACHINING
51
Oth Construction
56
OTH
1 1
OTH LABOUR
6
Oth Mach/Plant
OTH MACHINING
56
11
OTH SERVICE
3
OTH/TRANS/MACH
18
Other Building
46
67
OTHER MANUAL
3
183 = Unknown)
OTHER MISC
10
11
OTHER WOOD
9
PAINTER/DECORAT
16
PAVIORS
2 1
Plant Drivers
16
89
PLASTERER
1
PLASTICS
9
PLUMBER/HEATING
46
Product/Managers
17
Rail Construct
11
REFUSE
5
ROAD CONSTRUCT
32
11
ROOFER
18
SCAFFOLD/STEEPLE
29
SCIENTIFIC/BUIL
1
SCIENTIFIC/ENG
SERVICE/PIPES
5
STEEL ERECTOR
32 2
Surveyor/Planner
TRANS/MANAGERS
12
7
WELDERS
No
Quals
Yes
Figure 63 Trades Which Do And Do not Have Training Qualifications (821 Questionnaires,
5 THE ACCIDENT
5.1 QUESTION 19 – LENGTH OF TIME ON SITE
Going back to the accident, how long had IP been working at that particular site?:
Figure 64 Question 19 – Length of Time on Site (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 64 shows that most notified accidents, according to the survey, occur between 1 and 3 months
(17%) of the person having started work on the site, and the least amount of accidents occur between 4
and 5 years (0.2%), 3 and 4 years (0.7%), 18 and 24 months (1%), 2 and 3 years (1.3%) and over 5
years (1.5%), again using HSE categories. Some 15% of notifiers do not know how long the injured
person was on a particular site before the accident occurred. This needs to be further interpreted in
relation to the project duration and the norms for duration of site activity for the trade / construction
type.
57
Figure 65 compares the length of time the injured person was on site before the accident occurred to
the length of time the project was going on.
Figure 65 Comparing Length to Project to IP Time on Site Before Accident

58
5.2 QUESTION 20 – HOURS WORKED
What were the typical hours of work for IP and his colleagues? (hours per week):
350
302
300
250
Number of Notifiers
200
158
150
100 92
84
48 53
50 40
25 29
23 19
15 15 14 13
8 3 4 1 8 5 6 2
1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 3 3 1 1 5 1 2
0
Unkn
16
20
25
30
32
35
36
37
37.5
38
38.5
38.75
39
40
41
41.25
41.5
42
42.5
43
43.5
44
45
45.5
46
46.25
47
47.5
48
48.5
49
50
52
52.5
54
55
56
60
65
68
70
77
80
999
Figure 66 Question 20 – Hours worked
Figure 66 shows the most common hours of work for those involved in these incidents are 40 hours
per week (30%). The other significant categories are 45 hours per week (16%), 50 hours per week
(9%). Some 5% of notifiers did not know the hours of work for the injured person. Figure 67 shows
the hours of work grouped together. These need to be compared with industry norms. Only in 2% of
cases are the hours exceptionally long for the industry (e.g. > 60 hours per week).
Figure 67 Grouped Hours of Work (1004 Questionnaires)
59
5.3 QUESTION 21 – TASK INVOLVED
What task was he doing when the accident occurred?:
100
91
90
83
80
74
70 65
63
Number of Notifiers
60
51
50
41
39 38 39 39
40 36 35 35
31 30 31 31
30
24
22
18 19 18
20 16
12
10
8
10 5
0
Loading / unloading vehicle
Operating / maintaining plant
Stand-by
Painting / Decorating
Highway works
Supervision
Joinery work
Glazing
Labouring
Roofing / cladding
Lift installation
Maintenance
Erecting / dismantling
Flooring
Plastering
Brick / block laying
Housekeeping
Fit out
M&E
Steel works
Ground works / foundations
Inspection
Scaffolding
Unknown
Demolition / removal
Plumbing works
Concrete works
Other
Figure 68 Question 21 – Task Carrying Out (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 68 the most common task the injured person had been assigned to
undertake when an accidents occurred was M&E (9%). Other common tasks being carried out when
accidents occur are block / brick laying (8%), ground works / foundations (7%), joinery work (6%)
and roofing / cladding (6%).
60
5.4 QUESTION 22 – SPECIFIC ACTIVITY INVOLVED
What was the specific activity involved?:
200
176
180
160
140
Number of Notifiers
124
120
100 88
79
80
60 55 52 52
40 35 35
30
23 25 21 23
20
20 11 15 12 15 17 17 17
11
10 10 9 6 7
4 2 2 1
0
Stand-by
Traversing site (Carrying)
Using power tools

Joinery work
Glazing
Roofing / cladding
Maintenance
Supervision
Handling materials
Preparing materials
Using hand tools

Accessing / leaving workface (Ladders)
Accessing / leaving workface (Vehicles)
Plastering
Installing materials
Housekeeping
M&E
Preparing workface
Accessing / leaving workface
Inspection
Unknown
Plumbing works
Assisting
Traversing site
Concrete works
Figure 69 Question 22 – Specific Activity Involved (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 69 shows the specific work activity being undertaken when an accident occurred. The most
common activities are handling materials (18%), accessing / leaving workface (16%, either on the
same level (5%), using ladders (9%) or using vehicles (2%)), traversing site (16%, either carrying
equipment (4%) or not (12%)) and installing materials (8%). It appears that most of the accidents
were associated with ancillary activities (e.g. only 15 of the 83 people tasked for brick / block laying
were doing so at the time of the accident, etc).
61
Figure 70 and Table 2 compare the task to the specific activity being carried out when the accident
occurred. It is clear to see that the biggest category (20 accidents) concerns installing materials during
M&E. The other common combinations with 15 or more instances are handling materials while
labouring, handling materials or traversing the site while brick / block laying, accessing / leaving
workface (ladders) during M&E, loading / unloading vehicles during highway works, erecting /
dismantling scaffolding, loading / unloading vehicles, operating / maintaining plant and traversing the
site when supervising. These data provide a basis for examining relative risks in more detail.
20 20
18 18
16 15
17 16
16 15 15 15 15
14 14 14
13 13
12
12 11 12
12
10 11
10 109 10 Number of Notifiers
10 9
9 9 10
9 7 7
8 9 8 8
96 8 5 5 5
6 77
6 6 5
75 8
84
4
6 3 73
4
4
6 6 6 6
5 5 36
5 2
3 222 3
2 512
2 3 5 5
4 54 3 3 4 22 15211115112 2 32 332
3
4 4
4 2 3 3 1 1 11 2
1 3 1 32 2
3 2
5 5 3 11 5 1 62111 13 41
12231125 2 2 2
3 5 1 1 1 2 11 1 12 2111 121 1 1 2
22 3 2333313 2111 11141 1 111112 1 2 22 11
2
1 1 2
1 1 1 1 3 122 1 1 1 2 3 1 11 1 11 1
3 21 1
1 1 2 33 1 12 1 1 112 2 1 21 1
1111 11 1 2 12 1 1 111 1 1 1 11 11 1 1
11 0
1111 11 1112 2
2221 11 1
Unknown
Using power tools
Using hand tools

Concrete works
Traversing site (Carrying)

Traversing site
11
Supervision
Fit out
Stand-by
Flooring
Roofing / cladding
Preparing workface
Glazing
111
Preparing materials
Highway works
Plumbing works
Plastering
Housekeeping
Inspection

Joinery work
M&E
Labouring
Maintenance
Lift installation
Joinery work
M&E
Maintenance
Inspection
Housekeeping
Handling materials
Overall Task

Plastering
Glazing
Plumbing works
Roofing / cladding
Scaffolding
Concrete works
Stand-by

Steel works
Assisting
Accessing / leaving workface (Vehicles)
Specific Activity
Supervision
Accessing / leaving workface (Ladders)

Other
Accessing / leaving workface
Unknown
Figure 70 Task Involved Compared to Specific Activity Involved (1004 Questionnaires)
62
Table 2 Comparison of Task to Specific Activity
Operating / maintaining
workface (Vehicles)
Loading / unloading
Preparing workface
workface (Ladders)
Accessing / leaving
Accessing / leaving
Accessing / leaving
Preparing materials
Specific Activity
Handling materials
Roofing / cladding
Using power tools

Using hand tools
Plumbing works
Concrete works
Ground works /
Traversing site
Traversing site
Housekeeping
Grand Total
Joinery work
Maintenance
Supervision
foundations
(Carrying)
Inspection
Plastering
Unknown
workface
Assisting
Stand-by
Glazing
Task
vehicle
M&E
plant
Brick / block laying 4 3 14 2 16 6 3 4 3 4 15 5 1 2 1 83
Concrete works 1 1 4 5 2 1 1 1 16
Demolition / removal 2 10 10 1 3 2 1 5 2 36
Erecting / dismantling 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 18
Fit out 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 24
Flooring 1 1 2 1 3 2 10
Glazing 3 3 2 5 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
Ground works / foundations 5 1 10 1 2 8 13 3 1 12 2 1 1 7 5 1 1 74
Highway works 1 1 1 3 12 3 15 2 2 1 41
Housekeeping 1 3 1 11 13 1 1 3 1 35
Inspection 1 3 1 5 1 6 2 19
Joinery work 3 7 1 9 5 9 1 2 2 1 9 4 7 3 2 65
Labouring 3 3 1 1 18 4 1 2 1 11 5 1 51
Lift installation 1 1 1 2 5
Loading / unloading vehicle 1 1 2 1 12 15 2 1 1 3 39
M&E 9 16 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 20 2 3 2 1 1 9 2 1 3 2 91
Maintenance 2 5 1 2 9 1 5 3 1 2 3 1 35
Operating / maintaining plant 3 3 1 1 8 2 15 3 2 38
Painting / Decorating 3 5 1 1 1 1 10 3 2 1 1 1 30
Plastering 1 4 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 22
Plumbing works 1 8 5 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 39
Roofing / cladding 8 5 1 9 1 10 1 1 4 1 3 2 6 7 2 2 63
Scaffolding 2 2 17 7 1 2 2 6 39
Stand-by 6 2 8
Steel works 5 2 1 1 1 2 12
Supervision 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 15 31
Other 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 18
Unknown 2 6 1 1 1 5 1 14 31
Grand Total 55 88 20 11 15 4 30 23 2 12 176 15 17 79 10 52 17 2 52 10 9 1 25 17 6 11 7 124 35 35 21 23 1004
63
Number of Notifiers
180
160
140
120
100
80
0
60
40
20
Agent
00 - No
information
01 - Surface, structures and buil
ding access
equipment
02 - Surfaces and structures below ground
03 - Systems for the distributi
level on of materials or
0.00
substances
04 - Hand held tools and equipment
0 00
0 1
05 - Systems for energy and storage, motors
06 - Conveying, lifti
ng, storage systems and
0
3244
2
151
hand held
07pushed / pull
- Vehicles, ed transport
plant equipment
and earth moving
7
162
0
0
0 0
equipment
58
08 - Machines and equipment – not hand tools
64
09 - Materi
als, objects, products, machine
9
0 0
components
10 - Substances and radiation
2 00 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 01907 2
33 0 2
89
0
1
19 0
0 0 1
11 - Safety devices and equipment
12 - Furniture, washing and bathing facilities,
250000 004010
91
80
office equipment, personal equipment
111
14 - People
0 0
55
0
15 - Ani
mals, trees or plants
0 00 0110 0 3212 3 4 165 510 10 0411 01

16 - Physical, phenomena and natural
3
1
24 17 0 0 0000 00 0000 0000510 10 0 1
1
elements
0100 0000 0
100
0 0 0 1 1 350 0 0 0 0 11 2 0
00 - No information
objects (02) are materials, objects, products and machine components (09).
0 00 0
25
01 - Contact wi
th moving machinery
02 - Hit by moving, flying or falli
ng object
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02 0
03 - Hi
t by moving vehicle
0
0 3 0
Figure 71 Comparison of Accident Kind and Agent

04 - Hit fixed or stati
onary 0 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 1
05 - Injured while handling, lifti
ng or carying
8
0
10 0
06 - Slipped, tripped or fell
on same level
0 0 0 0
07 - Fall
from height
0
08 - Trapped by falling or overturned

10 - Exposed to harmful susbstance
0 00 00080400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 - Exposed to explosion
13 - Exposed to electricity
0 00 0000 00 1 0 0 1 0 0
14 - Physically assulted
16 - Other
Kind
injuries caused by handling, lifting or carrying (05) and injuries caused by moving, flying or falling
It shows that the most common factors involved in falls from height (07) and slips, trips and falls on
Figure 71 compares the accident kind with the agent causing the accident based on notifier responses.
the same level (06) are surface, structures and building access equipment (02). Factors contributing to
5.5 QUESTION 23 – SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Finally, from your experience, is there anything you could suggest that should be done to prevent such
accidents in the future?:
The responses received from notifiers to this question were wide-ranging and extensive. All the
responses are listed in Appendix B where they have been categorised. The meaningful analysis of this
information has been aided by the application of ‘Influence Network’ methodology as described
below.
5.5.1 Influence Network Model
5.5.1.1 Background
The Influence Network was originally developed to model how human and organisational factors
could affect the likelihood of human error leading to accidents in hazardous environments (e.g. nuclear
power stations, petrochemical plants, aerospace).
Social, Political
Social, and Market
Political and
Context
Context
Corporate Policy
Corporate PolicyInfluences
Influences
Organisation&
Organisation &
Management Systems
Management
Human and
Human and
Technical
Technical
Systems
Figure 72 Nested hierarchy of influences
The Influence Network approach for human performance was enhanced by BOMEL to cover human
and hardware performance at all levels in an organisation in a single analysis, thereby giving a
comprehensive approach to understanding the factors which influence the likelihood of human error or
hardware failure in the causation of accidents. This approach has rapidly gained wide
acknowledgement and has been applied in risk assessment and, perhaps more importantly, in the
development of risk reduction strategies for a variety of accident scenarios in a wide range of
industrial sectors. The structuring within the network gives coherence to fragmented information and
the quantification enables weaknesses and areas where change may achieve substantial benefit to be
identified.
65
5.5.1.2 Methodology
The Influence Network is developed from consideration of a generic set of influences which are
structured in a hierarchy representing the influence domains shown in Figure 72. The Generic
Influence Network is shown in Figure 73, and described in the following sections.
CONSTRUCTION
DIRECT LEVEL
SITUATIONAL
SUITABLE SAFETY
MOTIVATION / TEAM- AWARENESS / FATIGUE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONAL
COMPETENCE HEALTH COMMS COMPLIANCE HUMAN EQUIPMENT
MORALE WORKING RISK / ALERTNESS /ADVICE RESOURCES
CONDITIONS EQUIPMENT
/ PPE
D1 D2 D3 D4PERCEPTION D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13
ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL
INCIDENT
RECRUITMENT MANAGEMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT INSPECTION & PAY AND PROCESS
TRAINING PROCEDURES PLANNING MANAGEMENT COMMS
& SELECTION / SUPERVISION CULTURE PURCHASING MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS DESIGN
O1 O2 O3 O4
& FEEDBACK O11
O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O12
POLICY LEVEL
CONTRACTING OWNERSHIP & COMPANY ORGANISATIONAL SAFETY LABOUR COMPANY

STRATEGY CONTROL CULTURE STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT RELATIONS PROFITABILITY
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7
ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL
POLITICAL REGULATORY MARKET SOCIETAL

INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE
E1 E2 E3 E4
Figure 73 Generic Influence Network
At the top is the event being considered (i.e. construction accident prevention). Below the top event is
the direct causal level which is made up of human, hardware and external factors. These are perhaps
the most obvious contributors to an accident, and are therefore assumed to be the easiest to tackle.
What is of critical importance are the underlying influences that contribute to the accident’s
occurrence or prevention. In order to model these influences, the Influence Network has adopted a
hierarchy below the direct causal level as follows:
• Direct performance influences - these directly influence the likelihood of an accident being
caused.
• Organisational influences - these influence direct influences and reflect the culture,
procedures and behaviour promulgated by the organisation.
• Policy level influences – these reflect the expectations of the decision makers in the
employers of those at risk and the organisations they interface with (e.g. clients, suppliers,
subcontractors).
• Environmental level influences - these cover the wider political, regulatory, market and
social influences which impact the policy influences.
66
In terms of the construction industry, the relevant stakeholders that might be affected by the
suggestions made through the RIDDOR survey are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Construction stakeholders applied to Influence Network levels
Influence level Definition

Direct level Applies to site operatives and technicians, i.e. the people actually carrying out the
construction work.
Organisational Level Applies to the site organisation and local management.
Policy Level Applies to both the client and construction company management. Contracting strategy,
ownership and control and company culture apply to the client (i.e. the organisation
commissioning and paying for the construction activity) the remainder apply to the
policies of contractors carrying out the work.
Environmental Level The Political Influence incorporates both national and local government procurement
strategy as well as government as guardians of worker and public safety. Otherwise the
Environmental Level influences are external to the organisations represented at the
Policy Level.
5.5.2 Analysis
Notifiers’ suggestions for ways to prevent the accident have been analysed and classified under a
particular influence. In total there were 1395 (including null) separate classifications for the responses
to this question; many notifiers implied more than one suggestion with the highest number of
suggestions a notifier produced being four. All responses were included in the analysis. Of the 1004
notifiers, 171 indicated that there was “nothing” that could be done to prevent a similar accident in
future. Three notifiers declined to answer or had suggestions that could not be understood. Therefore,
the Influence Network analysis is based on 1221 separate constructive suggestions.
In summary, there were 720 direct level suggestions, 451 at the organisational level, 37 at the policy
level and seven at the environmental level. The classification of answers was made according to the
similarity between the content of the suggestion and the definition of the influence as illustrated
below. This process was corroborated by a second rater and this ensured that the reliability of the data
was maximised. However, it is important to appreciate that some suggestions do overlap more than
one influence, in such cases the answer has been classified under the most appropriate influence and
the quantification is indicative as opposed to definitive. The frequency with which suggestions relate
to the factors are shown in Figure 74 (50 suggestions relate to competence D1, for example). The top
10 factors, based on the frequency of suggestions are also shaded. The following section lists each
influence, its definition and gives actual examples of suggestions made by the notifiers categorised
against influences.
Appendix B lists all the influencing factors and corresponding suggestions against each. Where more
than one suggestion is made, other influence categories are shown alongside.
67
PREVENTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS
DIRECT LEVEL
SITUATIONAL
SUITABLE INTERNAL EXTERNAL SAFETY
MOTIVATION / TEAM- AWARENESS / FATIGUE INFORMATION OPERATIONAL
COMPETENCE HEALTH COMMS COMPLIANCE HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT
MORALE WORKING RISK / ALERTNESS /ADVICE RESOURCES CONDITIONS CONDITIONS EQUIPMENT
/ PPE
D1 D2 D3 D4PERCEPTION D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14
50 0 20 188 14 11 24 7 83 7 123 29 83 81
ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL
INCIDENT
RECRUITMENT MANAGEMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT INSPECTION & PAY AND PROCESS
TRAINING PROCEDURES PLANNING MANAGEMENT COMMS
& SELECTION / SUPERVISION CULTURE PROVISION MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS DESIGN
O1 O2 O3 O4
& FEEDBACK O11
O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O12
10 77 86 86 13 37 50 9 48 19 4 18
POLICY LEVEL
CONTRACTING OWNERSHIP & COMPANY ORGANISATIONAL SAFETY LABOUR COMPANY

STRATEGY CONTROL CULTURE STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT RELATIONS PROFITABILITY
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7
4 5 0 8 18 0 2
ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL
POLITICAL REGULATORY MARKET SOCIETAL

INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE
E1 E2 E3 E4
1 5 0 1
Figure 74 Influence Network for Suggestions of Improvement
5.5.2.1 Direct Level Influences
D1 ompetence - The skills, knowledge and abilities required to perform particular tasks safely
C
Examples:
• Use common sense
• Learn to bend knees when lifting.
D2 Motivation / Morale - Workers incentive to work towards business, personal and common
goals
Examples:
• None given
D3 T
eamworking - The extent to which individuals work in teams and look out for each other's
interests
Examples:
• Wait for others' help
• Assistance from another person to lift equipment
D4 S
ituational Awareness - The extent to which workers are aware of the hazards and risks
associated with working on a construction site
Examples:
• Be more careful and aware
• Care and attention
• Increase vigilance
D5 Fatigue - The degree to which performance is degraded, for example, through sleep
deprivation, or excessive / insufficient mental or physical activity, or drugs / alcohol
Examples:
• Was working in overtime - 2hrs per night Mon to Thurs.
68
• Reduce alcohol consumption the night before
D6 Health - The well being of body and mind of the workforce

Examples:
• Eye tests for employee
• Regular medicals
D7 C
ommunications - The extent to which the frequency and clarity of communications are
appropriate for ensuring effective task and team work
Examples:
• Better communication between operative and machine operator.
• Improve coordination of other trades’ activities
D8 Information / Advice - The extent to which people can access information that is accurate,
timely, relevant and usable
Examples:
• Operatives to seek advice when needed
D9 C
ompliance - The extent to which people comply with rules, procedures or regulations
Examples:
• Should use correct equipment to do the job
• Follow Method Statement
D10 Availability of Suitable Human Resources - The relationship of supply to need for suitable
human resources. Relates to the appropriate mix and number of workers in terms of
experience, knowledge and qualifications
Examples:
• More personnel to support potentially dangerous [built] structures.
• More hands on site.
D11 Internal Environmental Conditions - The extent to which the control of internal
environmental factors, such as tidiness and may prevent accidents
Examples:
• Don't leave manholes uncovered
• Improve housekeeping
D12 External Environmental Conditions - The extent to which the control of external
environmental factors, such as weather affect workplace activity may prevent accidents
Examples:
• Don't access work face in unsuitable weather
• Salt and grit workplace during winter
D13 Operational Equipment - The extent to which OPERATIONAL equipment and materials
are available, conform to best practice, meet the usability needs of the operator and are
inspected and maintained
Examples:
• Mechanical handling of equipment
• Better securing at bottom of ladder
• Use equipment that can detect cabling 20mm below ground
69
D14 Safety Equipment / PPE - The extent to which SAFETY equipment / PPE is available,
conforms to best practice, meets the usability needs of the worker and is inspected and
maintained
Examples:
• Wear goggles and gloves
• Cause was identified as a faulty boot. New boots issued.
• More warning signs
5.5.2.2 Organisational Level Influences
O1 Recruitment and Selection - The system that facilitates the employment of people that are
suited to the job demands
Examples:
• Don't employ idiots!
• Ensure that employees are given a medical before they are employed
O2 Training - The system that ensures the skills of the workforce are matched to their job
demands
Examples:
• Convinced CSCS cards going along right route and can only do good.
• Health and Safety training
• Manual Handling training
O3 P
rocedures - The system that ensures that the method of conducting tasks and/or operations
is explicit and practical
Examples:
• Revise method statement
• Generator should be switched off for refuelling
• Focus more on how work is sequenced so that employees work from platform
rather than ladders
O4 P
lanning - The system that designs and structures work activities
Examples:
• More strategic planning of material arrivals on site
• Have materials offloaded where it is needed, rather than transporting them across
site.
O5 Incident Management + Feedback - The system of incident management that ensures high
quality information is available for decision-making when and where it is required, including
the collection, analysis and feedback of incident and near-miss data
Examples:
• Safe system of work - take in all known incidents
• Recall this particular incident and point out how and why it happened
O6 Management / Supervision - The system that ensures human resources are adequately
managed/supervised
Examples:
• Managers have too much pressure - sends labour down to work without a proper
explanation of how, who, what, where and when. Senior management should guide
the process
• Changing behaviour. People revert when not supervised.
70
O7 C
ommunications - The system that ensures that appropriate information is communicated
clearly to its intended recipients
Examples:
• Communicate around the site.
• More communication between trades on site.
O8 Safety Culture - Product of individual and group values, attitudes, competencies and
patterns of behaviour in relation to safety
Examples:
• Should have been 2 man lift - culture change required. Stop them thinking they are
stronger than they are - training and education.
• More attention to safety
O9 E
quipment Provision - The system that ensures that the appropriate range of equipment is
available
Examples:
• Recommend that all boxes fitted with restraint arms to prevent the lids falling
down.
• Improve quality of ramps - semi wood / semi steel
• Have already improved vehicle design: when tipper is up and vehicle attempts to
move a speaker informs the driver that the tipper is up. After 5 metres of
movement, an external speaker announces the same message to others in the
vicinity
O10 Inspection + Maintenance - The system that ensures equipment and materials are
maintained in good working order
Examples:
• Ensure all faulty equipment is promptly reported and not used.
• Defective vehicles & plant must be repaired before use.
• Proactive inspection.
O11 Pay + Conditions - The remuneration package and benefits in the context of working hours
and conditions and welfare facilities
Example:
• Incentive schemes to encourage long term service. A key issue for safety is long
term service
O12 D
esign – The process of design to ensure the buildability of new structures and operability of
safety devices of existing structures during maintenance, repair and refurbishment.
Examples:
• Design that allows panels to be directly installed by crane.
• Do not improvise. Properly designed lifting points should be incorporated and
used.
5.5.2.3 Policy Level Influences
P1 Contracting Strategy - The extent to which health and safety is considered in contractual
arrangements and the implications
Example:
• Principal Contractor should enforce H&S Regs with Subcontractors
71
P2 Ownership + Control - The extent to which ownership and control are taken over sustained
safety performance
Example:
• Increase toolbox talks to show senior management commitment to safety
P3 Company Culture - Culture within an organisation consists of assumptions about the way
work should be performed; what is and what is not acceptable; what behaviour and actions
should be encouraged and discouraged and which risks should be given most resources
Example:
• No suggestions
P4 Organisational Structure - The extent to which there is definition of safety responsibility

within and between organisations
Example:
• Too much fragmentation [between contractors], single point contact would allow
better understanding of conditions
P5 Safety Management - The management system which encompasses safety policies, the
definition of roles and responsibilities for safety, the implementation of measures to promote
safety and the evaluation of safety performance
Examples:
• Management system failure. Damage to vehicles was reported. Scheduled for
repairs. But was used before carried out.
• Principal contractor should make regular inspections to ensure Site Safety.
P6 Labour Relations - This extent to which there is a harmonious relationship between

managers/owners and the workforce. It also concerns the extent to which there is the
opportunity for workers to affiliate with associations active in defending and promoting their
welfare, and the extent to which there is a system in place for pay negotiation
Example:
• No suggestions
P7 P
rofitability - The extent to which the owner is subject to competition over market share
and constrained as to the price that they can charge
Example:
• Less money pressure. Less time pressure.
5.5.2.4 Environmental Level Influences
E1 Political Influence - The profile of, and practices within, Government related to safety in the
industry
Example:
• No, the condition of council properties is often very poor.
E2 Regulatory Influence - The framework of Regulations and guidance governing the industry
and the profile and actions of the Regulator
Examples:
• HSE should start prosecuting individuals on site who are breaking the law (e.g. not
wearing hard hats), e.g. fining people £50 would get rid of problem in 2 months.
Word of mouth will eradicate problem.
• Need a proactive approach from HSE, to offer affordable advice.
72
E3 Market Influence - The commercial and economic context affecting the industry
Example:
• No suggestions
E4 Societal Influence - Aspects of the community and society at large, which bear upon
organisations and workers
Example:
• Change overall lifestyle attitudes to safety.
5.5.2.5 Discussion
It is clear that in answering the question, notifiers focused on aspects of site organisation and the direct
workplace factors, with infrequent references to more fundamental human or organisational change.
In a number of instances the problems were associated with worker behaviours but the notifier felt this
meant nothing could be done. The role of the notifier and context of the question in relation to a
specific accident will however have influenced the nature of the response.
It is notable that issues such as Situational Awareness / Risk Perception and Compliance are also
frequently cited as problems in more generic industry workshops. Training is also a specific focus of
industry activity, targeting improved health and safety. However, these initiatives have moved away
from hardware oriented solutions with a general observation that equipment is usually of a reasonable
standard and available, leaving emphasis on proper use, human and organisational factors.
The Operational Equipment deficiencies observed in response to this question generally relate to use,
with (correct) footing of ladders being a frequent example. Similarly, in relation to Safety Equipment
/ PPE, recommendations generally centre on wearing equipment provided, with typical references to
eye protection or gloves and only occasional mention of hard hats, perhaps suggesting their use is now
generally accepted. Patterns emerging in relation to the Internal Working Environment, frequently
relate to the covering of temporary openings, housekeeping, and maintenance of clearly defined
walkways. Use of common sense and care and attention are frequent suggestions to aid Competence
and Situational Awareness. Where Training is called for it is notable how frequently manual
handling training is suggested specifically. Together issues raised under Procedures and Planning,
confirm that pre-thought and more effective safety management controls could have prevented the
hazardous situations arising. Within Communications, at the organisational level, one frequent call
was for toolbox talks and for them specifically to address cross-trade/inter-contractor issues.
The above illustrate the key points emerging amongst the suggestions, but a sequential reading
through Appendix B helps the reader build a fuller picture.
73
74
6 QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK
6.1 RATING OF RESPONSES
When the questionnaire had been completed on the telephone the BOMEL questioner rated the
robustness of the replies given by the respondee subjectively, by answering the following question:
Did you feel the respondee (Tick one only):

a) Clearly recalled the incident and circumstances and gave robust replies throughout
b) Had reasonable recall of the incident and circumstances but was uncertain about some aspects
c) Had poor recall of the incident and it is doubtful the responses are reliable
900
800 767
700
600
Number of Notifiers
500
400
300
215
200
100
22
0
a) b) c)
Figure 75 Ratings of Answers Given (1004 Questionnaires)
As can be seen from Figure 75, the majority of responses (76%) have been given a high confidence
rating, while only 2% of responses were poor and 22% of responses were reasonable. Therefore, this
data can be used with a high confidence of its robustness.
75
6.2 F
EEDBACK
A field was also provided for the questioner to note any comments or concerns raised by the notifier:
Any other comments / concerns from you or the respondee in relation to the interview.
Some of the responses given to this question are:
• In some cases some of the questions were no applicable due to the nature of the project e.g.
− An accident occurred where the IP was carrying out maintenance on plant machinery
in a yard prior to plant going to a site. There was no client and no contract.
− An accident occurred while loading materials in preparation to go to a site
− An accident occurred in a workshop, preparing wood to be used on a variety of
projects
• A number of injured people were employed by a subcontractor to the notifying company or

were a self employed person working for a subcontractor to the notifying company
• A notifier was concerned in the initial stages that we were trying to sell something and / or
that the calls were associated with insurance services
• Some notifiers were unable to answer confidently to all areas of the questionnaire due to lack
of knowledge or no information available to confirm the question (i.e. contract specific
questions and IP employment / training specific questions)
• A number of notifiers were very happy to help and were pleased that something was being
done with the information they had submitted, however, one notifier was not happy about
being ‘cold called’
• A lot of people were very helpful and stated that reducing factors involved in construction
accidents was important.
Specific issues which were noted by questioners during the course of contacting the notifiers were:
• One notifier was ‘disappointed’ that HSE did not inspect the site of a high fall or investigate
the accident but this was communicated to, and followed up by, HSE
• A couple of injured persons should not have been on site as they were made redundant a few
days earlier or no longer worked for the company
• One notifier was carrying out a job (for 2 days) for a charity, for no money, which they have
done for the last nine years
• One notifier was keen to follow up the interview with some observations in respect of falls
from height. He was about to attend a NHBA course on this subject and recognised the
problem as serious. However, he felt that the latest requirements, as he understood them, in
relation to mitigation measures for falls from height were impractical to the point of making
it impossible to work and that safety regulation in the industry had reached a point of
diminishing returns. He thought that for a house builder to need to use catch nets or air
cushions was impractical and economically not viable. He also expressed a view that the
HSE should try to find (by research) fall mitigation measures that were practical and that if
76
more regulation in this area was promulgated it should be specific “they should tell us what
to do”, i.e. prescriptive rather than goal setting.
• A Safety Consultant in Aberdeen believes the construction industry is about 10 to 15 years

behind the offshore industry in safety matters / thinking. He also works a lot with paper
mills which he believes are about 5 to 10 years ahead of construction but 5 to 10 years
behind offshore.
• A Safety Officer for a construction company, who had previously worked in the oil industry
independently suggested construction safety practice was well below oil industry standards
but attributed this to a cultural element. Whereas in the oil industry there was a strong
claims culture and an employee with a minor injury might take off several weeks, on pay,
and also make a compensation claim, in construction for the same incident a worker may
take off only a few days, unpaid, and make no compensation claim. Thus in the oil industry
managers had to be more safety conscious to avoid claims whereas construction management
were less safety conscious as the potential for claims was much lower.
• A builder believed that CDM has done nothing to reduce accidents, suggesting site managers
on large sites would be better employed planning and supervising activities rather than
spending their time on CDM paperwork.
• A notifier had been working on a major public sector ‘Prime Contracting’ set-up and his
company was the ‘cluster leader’ for the buildings. He commented that: 1) The Consortium
was led by a ‘project management’ company who the notifier considered ‘inexperienced’ in
construction and safety. They employed a consultant Safety Specialist for initially only 1
day per week and later 2-3 days per week. The notifier indicated that for a project of that
size (£40M) they would normally have had a full time site safety presence. 2) The
organisational set-up meant that different people on site got different inductions although
they were all exposed to the same hazards. 3) Design Safety - All the services were to be run
under a false floor and presented permanent trip hazards and restricted material movements
until the false floor was installed. 4) As the building was ‘blast proof’ there was continuous
manual handling requirements for 25kg (dry weight) blocks which the bricklayers and their
labourers were handling for extended times (health hazard). 5) The roof construction
prevented personnel and material access.
• A notifying company has incentive schemes to encourage long term service which they see
as a very significant contributor to safety. They find that most accidents they have occur
with employees who have less than 18 months’ service.
• One interviewee (specialist interior decorators and stone workers) indicated that his past
year’s statistics showed 50% of their accidents were eye related with PPE not being worn
when needed.
Some of the trends which have been noticed by the survey team during the course of contacting the
notifiers are:
• The use of method statements, risk assessments, tool-box talks, site induction is almost
universal; it seems as if management are trying hard to prevent accidents which nevertheless
continue to happen. There is also significant safety and other training being provided (e.g.
safety awareness courses). There are, however, many instances of people not following
policies, procedures, instructions, method statements etc. and consequentially suffering
injuries.
77
• A number of incidents relate to Apprentices / Trainees (although often coded as employees).

One interviewee commented that the training colleges are teaching the tools / techniques of
the last century not those used on site today. Another suggested CITB training courses
taught ‘nothing useful’. A small builder developer noted that apprenticeships are too short at
two years. Newly qualified tradesmen come to work with little to no site experience or
awareness of the dangers on site. They can only do simple tasks.
• A large number of incidents seem to occur when people are traversing buildings / sites rather
than actually working at an activity. These are mainly caused by poor housekeeping, debris
etc. There are several instances of ‘another trade’ leaving obstacles on previously cleared
areas. Comments on the need for increased communication between trades were also made.
• A number of falls down staircases, trips outside buildings etc. occurred as people were
leaving the premises / leaving canteens etc - it is almost as if people switch off their safety
thinking when they go ‘off duty’.
• Quite a number of incidents occur when people are collecting or moving materials rather
than installing them. Wind was a contributor to some injuries as people moved sheets of
material in exposed areas. Wind also features in vehicle accidents in relation to doors being
blown shut.
• A large number of incidents appear to be in relation to maintenance rather than new build or
refurbishment (e.g. entering lofts to examine services). It is questionable how many of these
are captured by traditional thinking about ‘construction accidents’ - it obviously all depends
on definitions and the dividing line is fine but the necessary interventions will differ.
• Moveable ladders feature strongly - a number of incidents relate to the bottom few rungs -
this may be a premature feeling of ‘I've arrived and therefore am safe now’.
• Notifiers attribute a lot of incidents to carelessness, lack of attention / awareness,

complacency etc. One interviewee quoted a senior Inspector as saying words to the effect
that ‘incidents could often be prevented by use of common sense - the problem is that it isn't
too common!’- use of common sense was also a frequent suggestion in the survey as a means
to prevent future occurrences.
• A significant number of people state that there is nothing that could have been done to
prevent the accident and that it was a ‘one-off’ or ‘freak’ accident. Also people have stated
that ‘it was just an accident’.
• Quite a number of incidents occur from a) Using wheelbarrows on slopes, ramps etc. and b)
Protective covers on floors, stairways etc. (polythene and timber) – polythene when wet
appears to be a particular risk.
• On a separate DTI project BOMEL are working on, comments were made that good site
relations, motivation and high productivity were achieved by setting daily targets and
permitting the tradesmen to leave site early, without loss of pay, when those activities were
appropriately completed (apparently quality was not thereby compromised). During this
project comments were noted that such policies encouraged people to rush their work to
leave early leading to a lack of care and hence accidents. Thus, it was suggested that people
were putting themselves under pressure to gain their incentives rather than management
putting them under time pressure because of cost considerations (although, obviously,
management also benefited from the higher productivity).
78
7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The following sections review the data in the context of the main areas of interest for HSE, stated in
the pre-tender document (as detailed in the fatal accident pilot).
7.1 TYPE OF PROJECT
The information to determine the type of project was gathered in Question 1a and 1b (and Figure 7,
Figure 8 and Figure 9, reproduced here as Figure 76). The most common type of project associated
with notified major and over-3-day injury accidents, is a domestic housing new-build / construction
project (17%), with commercial (10%) new-build / construction and domestic housing refurbishment
(10%) being the second most common type, followed by commercial property refurbishment (8%),
domestic housing maintenance / repair (7%), civil engineering new build (6%), and public building
new build (5%). Table 4 compares these results with those provided by HSE for fatal accidents.
180 170
160
140
Number of Notifiers
120
105 104
100
83
80
66
60
60 50
45
40 34
28 28
23
14 17 15 16 16 16
20 10 11
6 7 7 9 7 6 5
1 4 1 1 3 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
0
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Public Buildings
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Commercial Property
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Domestic Housing
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Road Works
Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not
Repair Construction Preparation applicable
Figure 76 Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
79
Table 4 Type of Project Comparing Survey Results with Fatal Accidents
Project Types Fatal Accidents Survey Results Survey Results

(77 accidents) (1004 accidents) (946 accidents)
(1 accident = 1.3%) (1 accident = 0.1%)
New Build – Industrial 6.5% 3.6% 3.8%
New Build – Commercial 6.5% 15.5% 16.5%
New Build – Domestic 1.3% 16.9% 18.0%
Refurbishment – Non domestic 29.9% 21.0% 22.3%
Refurbishment – Domestic 26.0% 17.5% 18.6%
Road Works 18.2% 7.7% 8.1%
Other Civil Engineering 9.1% 11.0% 11.6%
Other Demolition 2.6% 1.0% 1.1%
New Build – Other - 1.8% -
Other / Unknown / NA – Non Dom. - 3.0% -
Other / Unknown / NA – Domestic - 1.0% -
The project types in Table 4 are as used by HSE with respect to fatal accidents. In the present survey
the categories were broken down further so that maintenance / repair and refurbishment could be
distinguished. The presentation in Table 4 amalgamates these back to the HSE survey categories as
follows:
• New Build–Industrial includes new build / construction (34) and site preparation (2) for
industrial facilities
• New Build–Commercial includes new build / construction and site preparation for
commercial properties (105, 1) and public buildings (50, 0)
• New Build–Domestic includes new build / construction for domestic housing only (170)
• Refurbishment–Non Domestic includes M&E fit out, maintenance / repair, refurbishment,
other unknown, not applicable for commercial property (4, 28, 83), industrial facilities (2,
17, 16), public buildings (0, 15, 28) and other (0, 7, 11).
• Refurbishment–Domestic includes M&E fit out (6), maintenance / repair (66), refurbishment
(104) for domestic housing
• Road Works includes all road works.
• Other Civil Engineering includes all civil engineering work.
• Other demolition includes all demolition work.
A number of detailed categories became necessary in the course of the survey:
• Other/Unknown/Not applicable–Domestic combines corresponding categories (7, 1, 2)

• Other/Unknown/Not applicable–Non-domestic combines categories for Commercial (9, 1,
1), Industrial (2, 0, 3) and Public buildings (2, 1, 0) and other (6, 0, 5).
The final columns show the proportions including and excluding the few extra categories although the
figures remain similar.
In examining the percentages, it is important to recognise that an accident resulting in a fatality would
affect the data in the first column by 1.3% but with major injury consequences the effect would be just
80
0.1% in the final column. The significance of the differences must be moderated in this way.
Nevertheless, it appears broadly that the proportions are comparable.
It appears also that the relative severity of accidents at roadworks is high compared with other
categories given the relatively significant contribution to fatality statistics compared with major and
over-3-day injuries. This may be associated with the nature of the work, public proximity and plant
used.
It might further appear that new build activity has a greater contribution to major / over-3-day injury
statistics than fatalities. However, the converse is that refurbishment (including maintenance and
repair) has a lesser contribution. However, potential differences in reporting culture need to be
considered (fatal accident data are considered all but immune to under-reporting) such that better
reporting of non-fatal accidents in new-build activity compared with refurbishment / maintenance
could distort the comparison in the manner shown.
Similarly the nature of the work and potential severity of injury must be considered such that the fact
that fatal injuries are relatively more significant in industrial / commercial construction than domestic
housing can be understood.
81
7.2 SIZE OF SITE
The size of the site can be shown by considering:
• The length of time the project was ongoing
• The number of contracting parties involved in the design, planning and construction
• The number of people present on the site.
The information to determine the duration of the project was gathered in Question 4a (and Figure 18,
reproduced here as Figure 77).
Figure 77 uses the categories supplied by HSE and shows that the length of the largest category of
projects are more than 6 but less than 12 months (15%) and more than 12 but less than 18 months
(14%) but projects lasting more than 1 day but less than 1 week (11%) and more than 2 months but
less than 6 months (11%) are also significant. There are very few projects which last more than 1 but
less than 2 weeks (0.1%) and more than 4 but less than 5 years (0.5%). However, there are a number
of projects over 5 years and ongoing contracts (5%). There are 7% of projects which last less than 1
day.
Figure 77 Length of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
82
The number of parties involved in the design, planning and construction of the project are also an
indication of the size of the site and project. Figure 78 shows that, of the projects where CDM was
said to apply (in 287 cases it was said not to apply), 23% of the projects involved only one company in
the design and engineering team. The graph also shows 44% of the notifiers did not know how many
companies were in the design and engineering team.
300
279
250
200
Number of Notifiers
150 142
100
70
50
50 41
16 14
1 4 3 2 3 2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 35 Unknown
999
Figure 78 Design / Engineering Team (627 Questionnaires)
The contracting chain from the notifying company to the client is established in Question 6 (and
summarised in Figure 32, reproduced here as Figure 79). The graph shows that the majority of
companies’ chains are two tier. The most frequent chain associated with notified accidents is where
the notifier is the Principal Contractor and contracted directly to the client or the notifier being a
subcontractor contracted to the Principal Contractor contracted to the client.
350
313
300
252
250
Number of Notifiers
200
160
150
100
51 49
50 32 32
28
18 15 20
2 7 5 2 4 7 2
1 1 1 1 1
0
(blank) (blank) (blank) Client Client Unknown Client (blank) (blank) Client Client Principal Unknown (blank) (blank) Client Principal (blank) (blank) Client Client Principal (blank)
Contractor Contractor Contractor
to Client to Client to Client
Client Unknown Client Principal Contractor Unknown Client Principal Contractor Unknown Client Principal ContractorUnknown Client Principal Contractor Unknown
Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor
Principal Contractor Subcontractor Nominated Subcontractor Unknown
Notifier Contractor
Figure 79 Chain of Contracting from Notifier to Client (1004 Questionnaires)

(Blanks are where there is no chain)
83
The number of people present on site at the time of the accident is established in Question 12a (and
Figure 46, reproduced here as Figure 80). The majority of projects, where accidents occur, have 1 to
10 people working on site (34%), whereas 1% of projects have over 500 people working on site. 29%
of notifiers did not know the total number of people working on a particular site where an accident
occurred. There are 15% of projects where 50 to 499 people work on site, 11% where 25 to 49 people
work and 6% where 11 to 19 and 4% where 20 to 24 people work on site.
400
350 342
300 292
250
Number of Notifiers
200
148
150
109
100
63
50 36
14
0
1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown
Figure 80 Number of People on Site (1004 Questionnaires)
In the fatal accident study, HSE’s Construction Division considered a small site to involve 15 people
or less and a large site to be over 15 people. Using the same classification for the major and over-3-
day injury accidents surveyed, Figure 81 compares large and small sites from which accidents have
been notified.
450
403
400
350
309
300 292
Number of Notifiers
250
200
150
100
50
0
Small Large Unknown
Figure 81 Comparison of Small and Large Sites (1004 Questionnaires)
84
Table 5 compares the size of project between the survey results and those provided by HSE for fatal
accidents.
Table 5 Size of Project Comparing Survey Results with Fatal Accidents
Site Size Fatal Accidents Survey Results Survey Results

(77 accidents) (1004 accidents) (Site size known)
Large Site 32.5% 30.8% 43.4%
Small Site 67.5% 40.1% 56.6%
Unknown - 29.1% -
Irrespective of the severity, the majority of notified accidents fall in the small site category. Although
information on site size across industry would help give a picture of risk level, it must also be
remembered that for major and over-3-day injury accidents, the data are influenced by the likelihood
of notification. The survey data alone show a higher proportion of notified injuries are associated with
large sites under-reporting compared with fatal injuries.
Assuming length of project is also an indicator of site size, it can be seen from Figure 77 that the
duration of 875 projects is known and 56.6% of these would number 495. Accumulating projects from
the smallest end of Figure 77, a break point of 495 cases coincides with projects of between 6 and 12
months duration. Further scrutiny could help lead to a corresponding duration criterion to categorise
site size.
85
7.3 PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR
Of the notifiers contacted, Figure 82 (reproduced from Figure 13) shows that 56% accidents,
according to the notifiers’ responses, occur within the private sector. From the responses, 33% of
accidents occur in the public sector, 7% in the domestic sector and 4% of notifiers did not know (or
recall) which sector the client’s business was in.
600
568
500
400
Number of Notifiers
331
300
200
100
73
32
0
Figure 82 Sector Where Project Carried Out (1004 Questionnaires)
Table 6 compares the percentages obtained for fatal accidents to the data gathered through the
questionnaire for each sector where accidents occur.
Table 6 Comparison of Sectors where Accidents Occur
Sector Fatal Accidents Survey Results Survey Results

(77 accidents) (1004 accidents) (Sector known)
Private Sector
63.9% 63.7% 65.9%
(including domestic)
Public Sector 36.4% 32.9% 34.1%
Unknown - 3.4% -
It is notable that the split of notified accidents between public and private sectors is very similar
irrespective of accident severity.
86
7.4 EMPLOYER SIZE
As can be seen from Figure 83 (reproduced from Figure 41) the most common size of notifying
company, using the HSE categories, is between 50 and 499 employees (40%) and a company size of
more than 500 (20%) is the second most common. The least common size of company is between 20
and 24 employees (4%). 9% of notifiers did not know how many people their company employed in
the UK.
450
404
400
350
300
Number of Notifiers
250
203
200
150 137
100 86
67 63
44
50
0
1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown
Figure 83 Number of Employees in Notifying Company (1004 Questionnaires)
Table 7 compares the size of the notifying employer for the results gained during the survey and those
provided by HSE for fatal accidents. In the fatal accident study, HSE’s Construction Division
considered a small contractor to be one employing 15 people or less and a large contractor to employ
more than 15 people. Counted within the ‘small’ category within the table are all cases where the
injured party was said to be self employed plus cases where the IP was directly employed and the
notifying company employs 15 people or less.
Table 7 Comparison of Employer Size where Accidents Occur
Contractor Size Fatal Accidents Survey Results Survey Results

(77 accidents) (1004 accidents) (Employer size known)
Large Contractor 41.6% 68.5% 74.9%
Self Employed or Small 58.4% 22.9% 25.1%
Contractor
Unknown - 8.6% -
Around three quarters of notifiers of major and over-3-day injury accidents are large contractors
whereas only around 40% of fatal accidents are attributable to this category. In considering these
findings consideration must be given to reporting levels as well as accident rates. If large employers
were better at reporting than smaller and self employed contractors then the pattern could in part be
explained given that fatal accidents occur are considered to be well reported irrespective of contractor
size.
87
Of the 33 cases (see Figure 51) where the IP is employed by a subcontractor, for 26 the notifier
(typically the Principal Contractor) is a large firm and it is probably misleading for the figures to be
counted in the large contractor category. However making the opposite assumption that the 26
subcontractors all fell into the small contractor category would only shift the percentages in the final
column to 72:28, large to small, still substantially greater than in the fatal accident case (42:58). It
seems counter intuitive and contrary to site experience that large contractor practices lead to more
major and over-3-day injury accidents and this shift in accident profile would seem to confirm a lower
level of reporting from small contractors.
88
7.5 APPLICATION OF CDM
Question 2 (and Figure 10, reproduced here as Figure 84) asked whether CDM applied to a project.
As can be seen in the majority of cases, 62%, the CDM Regulations were known to apply to the work
being carried out, while 29% of notifiers stated that the CDM Regulations did not apply. There were
9% of people surveyed who did not know if CDM Regulations applied.
700
627
600
500
Number of Notifiers
400
300 287
200
90
100
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 84 CDM Applicability (1004 Questionnaires)
Table 8 compares CDM applicability between the major and over-3-day injury accident results
gathered during the survey and those provided by HSE for fatal accidents. The proportions are
comparable but in the case of notified major and over-3-day injury accidents the notified cases are
more likely to be from a CDM site. The comments regarding reporting practices highlighted in
relation to contractor size in Section 7.4 are also valid here.
Table 8 Comparison of CDM Applicability Between Survey Results and Fatal Accidents
CDM Applicability Fatal Accidents Survey Results Survey Results

(77 accidents) (1004 accidents) (CDM status known)
CDM Applicable 57.1% 62.5% 68.7%
CDM Not Applicable 42.9% 28.5% 31.3%
Unknown - 9% -
In order to assess whether failure to apply CDM in full in cases where it should have been acted upon
has a significant association with accidents, the cases where CDM was said not to apply are reassessed
with respect to the following criteria:
• Was the work carried out for a domestic client and, if so, had the client entered into an
arrangement with a developer?
• Was dismantling or demolition work involved?
• Was the project notifiable (by virtue of duration and / or extent of effort)?
• Was the largest number of people carrying out construction work at any time five or more?
89
7.5.1 Was the work carried out for a domestic client and had the client entered into
an arrangement with a developer?
The responses gathered from Question 3c (and shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16) are reproduced here
as Figure 85 and Figure 86.
50
46
45
40
35
Number of Notifiers
30
25 23
20
15
10
5 4
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 85 Property Developer Involved for a Domestic Client (73 Questionnaires)
Figure 86 shows that 63% of domestic clients do not have a property developer involved, 5% do have
a property developer involved and 32% did not know. Of the four notifiers which stated a property
developer was involved in the work for a domestic client, three stated CDM did apply while one of
these notifiers stated CDM did not apply.
40
36
35
30
Number of Notifiers
25
20
15 14
10
5 5 5
5 4
3
1
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
No
No
Unknown
CDM
applies
Property
Developer No Yes Unknown
Figure 86 CDM Application Compared to Use of a Property Developer (73 Questionnaires)
90
7.5.2 Was dismantling or demolition work involved?
The responses given to Question 1b (and shown in Figure 8, reproduced here as Figure 87) show that
1% of projects involve demolition as the principal activity at the time of the accident. Other project
may have involved demolition and would therefore be notifiable but this latter aspect cannot be tested
from the responses. Figure 88 shows that of the demolition jobs, 4 notifiers stated that CDM did not
apply and 6 stated it did. Where demolition is involved, all the regulations apply to the work,
therefore in 4 major or over-3-day injury accidents the notifier stated CDM did not apply when it
should have done. In 3 of these cases, the duration of the work (Q4a) was said to be less than a week.
500
451
450
400
350
Number of Notifiers
300
275
250
200 192
150
100
50 34
10 16 10 11
5
0
Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not applicable
Repair Construction Preparation
Figure 87 Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
6
6
5
Number of Notifiers
4
4
0
No Yes
Figure 88 CDM Application Where Demolition is Involved (10 Questionnaires)
91
7.5.3 Was the project notifiable?
A project is notifiable, according to the CDM Regulations, if it lasts more than 30 days or involves
more than 500 man days construction work.
Question 4a (and Figure 18) showing the length of projects is reproduced here as Figure 89.
Figure 89 Length of Project (1004 Questionnaires)
Figure 90 shows that there are 21% of projects that last 30 days or less and 66% which last over 30
days. Projects which last more than 30 days are notifiable and hence all the CDM Regulations apply.
The figure shows that 76 projects last longer than 30 days but the notifier stated that CDM did not
apply when it should have done.
92
600
549
500
400
Number of Notifiers
30 days and Under

300 Over 30 days
Unknown / Ongoing
200
153
100 76
58
42 37 41
30
18
0
No Unknown Yes
Figure 90 Length of Projects and CDM Application (1004 Questionnaires)
Of the projects which are less than 30 days there would have to be more than 17 people on site for the
project to be notifiable (17 people over 30 working days gives 500 man days). Figure 91 shows the
number of people on site for projects which last less than 30 days and whether CDM is said to apply.
Applying the criterion depends also on fluctuations in manpower levels for which there are no data.
The candidate cases are however very short duration projects and would fall under CDM because of
the numbers of personnel on site.
60
56
50
40
CDM applies
Number of Notifiers
No
30 Yes
26 26 Unknown
23
20
10
10 8 8
6
5 5 5
4
3
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 00
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 15 20 40 80 Unknown
Number of People on Site
Figure 91 Comparison of CDM Application to Projects Lasting Less Than 30 Days to Total
Number of Personnel on Site (208 Questionnaires)
93
7.5.4 Was the largest number of people carrying out construction work at any one
time ever five or more?
If the number of people on site at the time of the accident was less than 5 or unknown (527 cases), a
supplementary question was asked to consider whether the number ever exceeded 5 (implying CDM
applicability). The responses to this Question 12b (Figure 48, reproduced here as Figure 92 and
compared to CDM application in Figure 93) show that 22% of these sites had five or more people on
site at any one stage and 40% have less than five people on site at any one stage. If there are five or
more people on site at some stage all the CDM Regulations apply. There are 25 cases where due to
the number of people on site CDM should have been applied but was not thought to as stated by the
notifier.
250
209
199
200
Number of Notifiers
150
118
100
50
No Yes Unknown
Figure 92 Five or More People on Site (no / unknown / yes) (527 Questionnaires)
94
160
144
140
120
112
100 CDM
Number of Notifiers
applies
No
78
80 Unknown
Yes
61
60
41
40
24 26 25
20 15
0
No Unknown Yes
Figure 93 Comparison of 5 or more workers on site to applicability of CDM

For the 477 cases when 5 or more people were on site at the time of the accident, comparison with the
stated applicability of CDM is shown in Figure 94. It can be seen that in 57 projects where CDM
should have applied, because 5 or more personnel were on the site, it was stated by the Notifier that
the provisions had not applied.
450
396
400
350
300
Number of Notifiers
250
200
150
100
57
50
25
0
No Yes Unknown
Figure 94 Comparison of 5 or more workers on site at the Time of the Accident to

applicability of CDM (477 Questionnaires)
Based on this analysis of CDM applicability, it appears from the information available that of the 287
accidents where the notifier stated that CDM did not apply to the project (in 627 cases it was said to
apply), in 83 cases this was incorrect and CDM should have been applied in full. The individual and
95
combined criteria against which CDM applicability has been deduced are shown in Table 9. Cases of
ongoing work (generally maintenance activity) are excluded and cases where responses have been
‘unknown’ are also excluded from the figures such that they may be considered to represent a lower
bound.
Table 9 CDM applicability in cases where notifier said CDM did not apply
Combination of criteria No. of cases Notes

Client Prop. Demolition Duration >4 people >4 people In survey CDM
D=domestic, Dev. >30 days at time at other applies
N=non domestic time
D 23 -
D „ 1 -
D „ 8 -
D „ „ 11 -
D „ „ 3 -
D „ 2 -
D „ 3 -
N N/A 134 -
N N/A „ 3 3 All < 1 week
N N/A „ „ „ 1 1
N N/A „ 11 -
N N/A „ „ 6 - Ongoing
N N/A „ „ 2 -
N N/A „ 25 25 7 cases 1 month
N N/A „ „ 22 22
N N/A „ „ 6 6
N N/A „ 15 15 3 cases 5 people
N N/A „ 11 11
No. of cases where indication is CDM should apply but notifier said not 83 Excl. ongoing
The implication is that in 29% of the 287 cases where CDM was said not to apply, there is evidence
that it was in fact applicable adding some 13% to the CDM applicable cases within the dataset. Lack
of application or recognition of CDM would not seem to be a major factor or potential control
overlooked by notifiers within the dataset. It should also be noted that notification of accidents
through RIDDOR may in itself indicate good recognition of legal requirements of which CDM forms
a part so that the dataset may be inherently biased.
It can be seen that in a number of cases it appears that CDM should have applied on a number of
counts.
Of the 51 cases with domestic clients where CDM was said not to apply, the one case with property
developer involvement did not exceed the other limits. In the remaining 50 domestic cases which
96
were not conditions for CDM application, 27 cases met or exceeded one or more of the criteria which
apply to non-domestic work (i.e. the construction works were nevertheless fairly substantial despite
the client being ‘domestic’).
Table 10 shows the proportion of cases where one of the criteria applies in comparison with the
number of cases in each category within the sample. This demonstrates that the most frequently
overlooked criterion appears to be demolition (although the absolute numbers are small and three of
the jobs are of very short duration). There is no distinct pattern when considering numbers on site or
project duration. Taking the number of people criteria together, it is in 9% of the 595 cases where the
numbers of people on site are 4 or more at some stage, that the sites were not thought by the notifier to
have been subject to CDM. In 8% of cases exceeding the 30 day limit, CDM has been said not to have
applied when it ought.
Table 10 Criteria being overlooked in considering CDM applicability
Criterion No. failing Corresponding group Level of

criterion oversight
Domestic and Prop. Dev. 0 Of 4 domestic jobs with PD 0%
Demolition 4 Of 10 demolition jobs 40%
Duration > 30 days 54 Of 667 jobs lasing > 30 days 8%
(excluding ongoing work)
>4 on site at time of accident 38 Of 477 sites where >4 at time of accident 8%
>4 on site at some other time 17 Of 118 sites with <5 at time of accident but >4 at 14%
some other time
Note: Some cases fail more than one criterion so above total exceeds Table 9
97
7.6 VALIDATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SELF EMPLOYED INJURED

PERSONNEL
The criteria involved in verifying if an injured person is self employed or directly employed are:
• Payment conditions
• Who they take instructions from for their work
• If they have a contract for services or a contract of service
• Type of employment contract
Question 14a (and Figure 51, reproduced here as Figure 95) asks the notifier about the injured
person’s employment status (directly employed, self-employed or employed via an agency). Figure 95
shows that 78% of injured people were directly employed by the notifying company, while 13% were
self-employed, 2% were employed via an agency and 3% were employed by a subcontractor. Some
4% of notifiers did not know what the injured person’s employment status was.
900
800 779
700
600
Number of Notifiers
500
400
300
200
136
100
33 36
20
0
Directly Employed Self Employed Employed by subcontractor Agency Employed Unknown
Figure 95 Employment Status (1004 Questionnaires)
In this sub-section the above criteria are applied to those 136 accidents where injured persons are said
to be self-employed to test whether they are effectively working as employees. In 55 of these cases
the original ICC notification indicated they were employees (and 7 direct employees according to the
survey were designated self-employed in the original notification giving a net change of 48), underling
the uncertainty surrounding employment status.
Question 14b (and Figure 53, reproduced here as Figure 96) show the payment conditions of self-
employed injured persons. Figure 96 shows that of the injured people who were self-employed, 29%
were paid weekly, 24% were paid hourly, 13% were paid a lump sum at the end of the project, 10%
were paid daily and 3% were paid monthly. Some 21% of notifiers did not know how the injured
person was paid. It appears that only 17 injured persons are clearly paid as self-employed personnel
(lump sum).
98
45
40
40
35
32
30 29
Number of Notifiers
25
20
17
15 14
10
5 4
0
Hourly Day rates Weekly Monthly Lump Sum Unknown
Figure 96 Payment Conditions (136 Questionnaires)
Question 14c (and Figure 54, reproduced here as Figure 97) shows who the injured person takes
instructions from to carry out their work. Figure 97 shows that, of the injured people who were self-
employed, 85% received their instructions from personnel in authority (73% site foreman, 11%
supervisor, 2% production group), while 8% carried out their own work (or were the person in
authority). 7% of notifiers did not know whom the injured person took instruction from for their
work. Therefore only 11 injured persons seem to be working as if they were self employed (carrying
out their own work).
120
99
100
80
Number of Notifiers
60
40
20 15
11
9
2
0
From Foreman Own Work Production Group Supervisor Unknown
Figure 97 Responsibility / Line Management (136 Questionnaires)
99
Question 14d (and Figure 55, reproduced here as Figure 98) show whether the injured person had a
contract for services or a contract of service. Figure 98 shows that of the injured people who were
self-employed, 79% of injured people had a contract for services (a contract to provide personnel,
which maybe oneself, for a service) and 15% had a contract of service (a contract to provide oneself
for service). 6% of notifiers did not know the type of contract the injured person had with the
company. Therefore 107 injured persons had a contract that would indicate that they were self-
employed (contract for services).
120
107
100
80
Number of Notifiers
60
40
21
20
0
FOR Services OF Service Unknown
Figure 98 Contract Conditions (136 Questionnaires)
100
Question 15 (and Figure 56) show what type of employment contract the injured person had. Figure
99 shows that the majority of self employed injured people had a fixed period contract of employment
(12%) or some other temporary work contract. There are 10% of injured people employed under a
permanent contract, 7% were casual workers, 1% were employed by an agency and 1% were seasonal
workers. Around 59% of notifiers did not know what type of contract the injured person was
employed under. Therefore 43 injured persons had a contract of employment which could apply to
self-employed personnel (fixed period, agency temping, casual work, seasonal work and other
temporary work).
90
80
80
70
60
Number of Notifiers
50
40
30
20
16 15
13
9
10
2 1
0
Permanent Fixed Period Agency temping Casual Work Seasonal Work Other temporary Unknown
Contract work
Figure 99 Temporary or Permanent Work (136 Questionnaires)
Table 11 shows the numbers of cases in which one or more of the self employment criteria are met. A
clear demarcation of true self employed status would be if all criteria were met but there are no cases
amongst the 136 where this is so. However, it should be recognised that these questions were often
difficult for the notifier to answer and, in relation to temporary or permanent status, 80 replies were
‘unknown’ (59%) making this an unreliable indicator. Nevertheless, there are also no cases where all
three of the other criteria are satisfied.
The penultimate row in Table 11 shows the totals where the responses match the criterion within the
column. The final row presents for comparison the number of cases where the respondent stated
‘Unknown’. This confirms that there was considerable uncertainty regarding permanency of the
employment contract and greater clarity in whom instructions were taken from.
Taking the first two as the most clear cut categories and therefore the stronger indicators irrespective
of compliance with the others, suggests just 25 of the cases may be self-employed. The evidence is
however weak and it therefore appears that in the majority of notified cases the notionally self-
employed are working in a manner and with terms and conditions such that they are effectively
employees in respect of health and safety controls.
101
Table 11 Combinations of Criteria for the 136 Notionally Self Employed
Paid Lump Sum Own Instructions Contract FOR Non-permanent No. of cases
service form of contract satisfying criteria
„ „ „ 3
„ „ 10
„ „ „ 3
„ „ 1
„ „ „ 2
„ 1
„ „ 3
„ „ 1
„ 1
„ 67
„ „ 22
„ 11
11
17 11 107 43 136
29 9 7 80 ‘Unknown’
No injured persons was paid lump sum, carried out their own work, had a contract for services and had
a temporary employment contract. Therefore none of the injured persons were truly self-employed.
102
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 OVERVIEW
In deriving overall conclusions the views and experience of the survey team were combined. Findings
were considered in relation to the survey itself, observations on industry performance and the actions
and role of HSE. Both conclusions and recommendations are presented.
8.2 C
ONCLUSIONS
8.2.1 Data
The conclusions from this study are generally discussed in each section and in each question.
However, it can be stated that the data gathered do help inform the industry and HSE as to:
• What type of projects are associated with accidents
• The size of site where accidents occur
• If the project, where accidents occur, is within the public or private sector
• The trades and activities associated with accidents
• The size of the employing company
• Whether the applicability of CDM is mirrored in projects where accidents are reported to be
occurring.
A significant conclusion is that the data gathered are informative and give a better understanding of
the circumstances surrounding construction accidents than can be gleaned from the pan-industry
RIDDOR reporting and FOCUS coding.
There is potential for considerably more analysis than allowed within this project, for example to drill
down in to the distinctions between major and over-3-day injury accidents or to explore the nature of
accidents associated with maintenance and repair as opposed to new-build.
The questions in the questionnaire which were deemed to be less useful are:
• Method Statements and Risk Assessments – Almost all respondees said method statements
were in place supported by RAs which were all kept up to date. A number of people stated,
however, that they were generic. It was also felt that while the majority of companies had
method statements and risk assessments and / or recognised the need, there was no linkage as
to whether they were followed or addressed the risks that were realised in the accident..
• Health and Safety in the Contract – A number of people stated that there was some reference
to health and safety in the contract but did not say what it was to do with, e.g. either all their
contracts had references to H&S, they had read the reference once or a contracts department
had dealt with the contractual side but they knew there were references to H&S in it. The
degree of influence of this provision was sensed to be minimal but again no linkage could be
demonstrated.
103
It would have been useful to include the following in the questionnaire:
• Break down the ‘suggestions for improvement’ into ‘what did you do following the
accident?’ and ‘what would you do differently?’
• Ask what was in place before the accident, i.e. if they stated that a tool box talk on manual
handling was given after the accident, ask if they had had a tool box talk on manual handling
before the accident and how long ago.
8.2.2 I ndustry
Asked for salient impressions, the survey team observed that:
• A number of plant accidents occurred when hooking and unhooking trailers
• A number of accidents occurred when walking around the site either off-duty (lunch, break,
etc) or carrying out housekeeping
• Cross communication between the trades did not happen resulting in misunderstandings
between the trades
• The weather (wind, rain, snow, etc) was a factor in a number of accidents, i.e. the wind
blowing vehicle doors closed – the survey period was of accidents from December to March
• There was a lack of marked access routes (or non access areas) around sites which
contributed to a number of accidents
• The factors involved in some accidents were the suitability of the personnel carrying out the
activity, i.e. a 21 stone person climbing a tower.
• A number of accidents involved power tools (drills, angle grinders, etc) snagging and
jumping resulting in an injury
• Accidents involving ladders were observed to be low falls on the final rungs possibly
combined with an attitude of ‘it is the last few steps and I’m safe’
• A number of accidents involved getting in or out of vehicles / plant or lofts
• In a number of accidents where lifting was involved; the facilities for mechanical lifting
equipment were provided but not used
• The attitude of a number of notifiers was that ‘it was just one of those things’ and there was
no recognition that it could happen again or that they could prevent it
• A number of accidents involved personnel swinging off scaffolding after being in the pub,
‘fooling around’, etc
• A number of notifiers were of the opinion that new personnel to the construction industry
were not made aware of the risks on site whilst attending training colleges
• Lack of care and attention significantly contributed to a large number of accidents.
104
• Personnel were noted as not following guidelines in the case of use of PPE
• A number of notifiers were said to have some level of scepticism as to whether the injury
was work related or, for example, was a football injury.
The above observations from the project team correlate well with the areas for improvement given by
notifiers and listed in Appendix B and summarised in Section 5.5.2.
8.3 R
ECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations can similarly be categorised into three areas:
8.3.1 Data
While the extra data are very useful and provide better insight into the factors involved in construction
accidents, a considerable amount of effort was required to, firstly, obtain the notifier details and,
secondly, contact the notifier. However, if the survey were carried out by post (or fax or email) it is
envisaged that the success rate would be considerably less. It is recommended that this data continue
to be gathered but it has been shown that data from a smaller sample (e.g. 500 notifiers) would be
adequately robust. It is suggested that the F2508 form be reviewed for construction accidents to
enable this type of data to be gathered from the notifying company.
Further analysis of the data can best be conducted through use of the pivot charts into which the
FOCUS and survey data have been amalgamated. Considerable in depth analysis is now possible, for
example looking at particular trades, major versus over-3-day injury profiles, the nature of accidents in
CDM notified sites compared with others, exploring the type and severity of accidents associated with
maintenance activity etc.
8.3.2 I ndustry
Based on the feedback from the survey, it is recommended that the industry could:
• Promote cross trade communications by, for example, cross discipline tool box talks
• Include time on site as a regular part of college training courses. This would enable the
trainee to understand the processes involved in site working, the environment and the risks
• Provide training or tool box talks on accessing / leaving the workface or vehicles, risk
assessing particular tasks in varying weather conditions, use of ladders, lifting/carrying, etc
i.e. ancillary aspects of construction work
• Ensure the method statements and risk assessments are adhered to. Perhaps the personnel
actually doing the work need to have some input into them rather than site managers / project
managers preparing them and expecting the personnel to follow them
• Ensure access routes (and non access areas) are clearly marked for both personnel and
vehicles with particular attention to temporary openings.
105
8.3.3 HSE
Similarly in relation to the HSE role:
• A number of accidents involve poor housekeeping. It is suggested that HSE personnel,

perhaps not fully qualified inspectors, could undertake frequent visits to construction sites to
promote good housekeeping
• It was suggested that the flaws in drills which cause accidents could be designed out
• It was noted that while the sizes of cement bags, etc, have been reduced the size of kerb
stones have not. It is recommended that the size of kerb stones be reduced to enable them to
be easily carried
• Tool box talks are delivered to a wide range of personnel by a number of different people. It
is suggested that guidelines be published on how to deliver tool box talks, who should
deliver them, subjects to be covered and examples of visual aids. It is suggested that
personnel who have been injured, for example, by manual handling, give the tool box talk on
manual handling
• It is recommended that HSE use the data to work in partnership with specific groups, e.g.
house builders, to examine the profile of accidents in their sector and identify focused
initiatives that might be relevant and effective in improving safety.
106
9 REFERENCES
1. Health and Safety Executive. Construction Statistics. Published on HSE web site
(www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/index/htm)
2. Health and Safety Commission. Health and Safety Statistics Highlights 2001/02. HSE
Books, www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overpic.htm, December 2002.
107
108
APPENDIX A – PRINT OUT OF QUESTIONNAIRE
The following pages show print outs for the Questionnaire from the Access Database.
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
APPENDIX B – NOTIFIERS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCIDENT
PREVENTION
The following table lists the areas for suggested improvement indicated by notifiers in response to
Question 23. The suggestions have been related to relevant influences within the Influence Network
(e.g. E1, D4 etc). The designation ‘0’ indicates no specific suggestion was forthcoming and ‘1’ that
the suggestion could not be interpreted with general application. Section 5.5 presents the definitions
of the factors and aggregates the findings.
I1 Notifier suggestions / recommendations I2 I3 I4

0 No
0 No
0 No. No specific hazards
0 No just unfortunate
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Absolutely nothing
0 No
0 No
0 Not really - Manual Handling Course had been taken.
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Just bad luck
0 Freak accident, interviewee could make no recommendations for prevention.
0 No
0 Nothing.
Only factor in the accident was his own fault and could have been prevented if he did not slip
0 No
0 No
0 Took back to manufacturer but was no damage. There was nothing really that could have
prevented this accident.
0 None.
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Just one of those things, nothing really could be done.
Lighting was working and all storage was good
0 No
119

0 No
0 None.
0 Let labourer do it as they are the expert, but unusual occurrence - not foreseeable, risk could not
have been predicted and avoided
0 No
0 All safety precautions were in place and nothing more could have been done.
0 No
0 No
0 Was doing everything as specified, had PPE and adequate edge protection. Just freak accident,
no realistic improvements
0 No
0 No. Very unlikely accident.
0 Not really.
0 No
0 No. Freak accident
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Nothing
0 No
0 Unavoidable accident - tripped over own feet.
0 No
0 No
0 Nothing
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 None.
0 Spoke to Inspector at HSE about the accident.
All precautions were in place. Sheet popped out instead of slid out and swung towards IP, as he
moved sheet went over the protected part of his foot and damaged unprotected part of foot.
Nothing more could have been done - pure accident.
0 No
0 Nothing
0 No
0 Nothing to do was a freak accident - just went wrong on this occasion
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Not really, just one of things, the employee was very experienced.
0 No
0 No
120

0 Not really relevant
0 No
0 No - could easily happen at home.
0 Freak accident - hammer rebounded.
Not sure what else could have done to prevent.
0 Result of accident - took tip off finger - 1/2" off top.
Could not really do anything to prevent accident as IP and company do not know what
happened.
0 No suggestions
0 No
0 No
0 None.
0 No
0 No
0 Site not seen, full investigation not possible.
0 They have had Independent people to check the fuse box and are awaiting results. IP does not
remember what happened but is sure he was not doing anything wrong.
They are not sure what went wrong so they are not able to say what could have prevented the
accident.
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Freak accident
0 Nothing in particular.
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Generally one off unavoidable accident. All things in place were being done.
Cannot suggest anything cost effective to reduce accidents. Could use JCB to move small
amounts but that is not cost effective and no contractors would do it.
0 No. Just lost footing. Handrail & Steps appeared to be appropriate.
0 Always something that you can do but could not pin point it.
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Nothing, just one of those things
0 No
0 No
0 Not realistically.
0 No
0 No
121

0 No
0 Nothing
0 No
0 None.
0 No, just a trip
0 One-off - pulled calf muscle
0 N.A.
0 Nothing.
0 No
0 No
0 Nothing, all training given
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Activity had to be manual. No suggestions.
0 No - freak accident
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No - long standing problem
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 IP was provided with gloves and was wearing steel toe cap boots. Nothing more could be done
0 No
0 Nothing
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Nothing - just one of those things
0 No, very difficult to overcome
122

0 Ladder inspected, PPE worn. No recommendation
0 Wearing PPE as instructed.
0 No. Mechanical equipment could not be employed.
0 No
0 Not known.
0 Accident unknown
0 No
0 No - see description.
0 No
0 No
0 No
0 Nothing else could be done - safety footwear is provided and was being worn and lots of
training.
0 No
0 No
1 Declined to answer this question
1 Could not really say as there is an insurance investigation going on at moment with two
different stories.
1 No comment.
d1 No. Careful use of tools.
d1 Extra inspection of scaffolding beyond scaffolder certificate.
d1 Use tools in proper way.
d1 More common sense - walk round obstacles - have defined access routes d11
d1 IP should use good practice
d1 Make sure any nails are taken out of the wood before putting piece down and ensure that nails
are put in safe place.
d1 Use of common sense
d1 Don't put ladders on wet plastic sheeting
d1 Avoid use of sledge hammer d4
More forethought
d1 Ideally, do not carry items when using ladders.
d1 M/C is guarded with kick plate. Activity shouldn't have happened while M/C is running. o2 d4
Competency of trainers is poor. More individual awareness of safety issues.
d1 Inappropriate lift - he knew he shouldn't have done it.
d1 None.
Put down tools he was working with. Forgetting their location, he tripped over them - how do
you prevent that?
d1 Current education system is better, especially for younger employees o2
IP was educated under 'old' system where H&S was not so relevant
d1 Use correct tools provided.
d1 Use correct hand (I.e. right hand for right hander) d5
Stand properly
Keep focused
d1 Don't put ladder on a tarpaulin sheet, more care more thought.
d1 Use common sense. Learn to bend knees when lifting. o2
d1 IP should know better. No more use of trestles without fall prevention o9
123

d1 People to use common sense o3
Method statement was revised

d1 Don't use equipment that you feel unsafe on.
d1 Ensure that surfaces are adequately prepared/strengthened for construction work. o7 p4
Improve communication between, and coordination of contractors working on site.
d1 Lift sheets singularly rather than a pack of boards or use fork lift. o4
d1 Handle properly
d1 Steps must be secured in the correct position
d1 Standardise the configuration of instrumentation for equipment - IP used 'old' knowledge, o2
acquired from using older equipment to operate a new hoist
d1 Trestles normally erected by hand carriers.
Untrained personnel should not erect working platforms
d1 Not really, perhaps more care or positioning of sack truck
d1 Should ensure that hoist was steady
d1 Only allow equipment to be used by trained people o6
d1 Blade must be removed from M/C d14 o3
Gloves to be worn
Rubbish should be separated and bagged.
d1 Ensure chains are fully slack to allow for crane movement.
d1 Avoid inexperienced employees o1
d1 Practice only. Take time & be careful.
d1 Start with hole from top
d1 More common sense
d1 Increase common sense
d1 Should remove from the top not bottom of the downpipe.
d3 Delivery driver should open rail gate prior to reversing to paver. Banksman should supervise the o3
process.
d3 Possible footing of ladder. This was required by the method statement d9
d3 Another man to watch his back
d3 Assistance from another person to lift equipment
d3 Having a person to foot ladder or telescopic ladder to ground to fit to floor. d13
d3 2 People/Door might help.
d3 Paired lifting with one other person to slide jack lift underneath
d3 Mark cones around base of ladder and someone to foot ladder.
d3 Wait for others' help
Tie/fix ladder
d3 When conditions are adverse use 2 men to carry boards. d12
d3 Use two men to uplift
d3 Seek colleague's assistance
d3 A two man approach might have prevented the incident.
d4 Slow down processes
More care
d4 Increase awareness
d4 Avoid complacency with low platforms - tool box talks o7
d4 Pay more attention
124

d4 Be more careful, and define what more care means o6
More supervision, - contact has evidence that most accidents are caused by poor/ absence of
supervision.
d4 Be aware of dangers. Tell other what not to do d3
d4 Do not walk forward (into hazard)
d4 More awareness and responsibility by IP and Folk lift driver.
d4 No.
More care.
d4 Stand clear of operations.
d4 Take more care in future
d4 More observant
d4 Be more alert
d4 More care and attention
d4 Improve awareness. Avoid complacency
d4 More care by Operative.
d4 Work area was all very safe so not much could be done, perhaps more care and attention
d4 More awareness
d4 Heightened awareness.
d4 More awareness
d4 IP should concentrate more
d4 Awareness
d4 No, assumed that he missed footing and fell off side of trestle. At the time it was deemed that
there was no need for hand rail. Lack awareness perhaps.
d4 More vigilant
d4 More awareness
d4 More care and attention, more concentration d5
d4 More care.
d4 More care and awareness
d4 More awareness
d4 Take more care, operative should know his limits. d1
d4 Awareness
d4 Don't try to catch dangerous propped objects
d4 Increase vigilance d9 o2
Put steps out properly
Educate to increase awareness
d4 General increase in awareness on site. d14 d12
Wear protective footwear
Consider weather conditions
d4 Lack of concentration / awareness
d4 Face approaching traffic when entering vehicle. Increase awareness o3
d4 More awareness
d4 More operative responsibility / awareness
d4 More care on part of IP
d4 More awareness. Lorry should be brought into close proximity with loading bay o3
d4 More care
d4 Take extra care, reduce familiarity.
125

d4 Operative awareness
d4 Calm people down - stop corner cutting. d3
Should have used Banksman to disconnect.
People should follow instructions.
d4 Care and attention
d4 Avoid carelessness. Exact cause of accident unclear. Could operations have been designed o12
out?*
* Designers only paying lip-service. CDM Heavy Blocks, Smaller Components.

d4 More care/ awareness o9
Colour code short/long sacks
d4 More care, reinforce procedures o3
d4 More care, more tolerance and self control
d4 Take more care d12
Salt road
d4 More awareness on the part of employee
d4 Increase awareness o2 o7
Remove risks immediately
More training/ toolbox talks to communicate
d4 More care. Ensure mixer is on firm surface. Pay on 'piecework' tends to cause too fast work o11 d1
d4 Be more careful and aware
d4 Make sure drivers are aware of danger from the weight of the side drops.
d4 Be more careful
d4 Be more vigilant d14
Eye protection
d4 More care taken by supervisor staff to ensure holes covered properly - should be aware of this. o6
d4 Be more vigilant
d4 Increase employee awareness of H&S
d4 Just down to care and attention
d4 Ensure machine not in operation when someone tampering with bucket. - care and attention o3
d4 More awareness d11
d4 More notice of what ground is like
Ensure that ladder is on even ground
d4 More vigilance on part of Plant operator
d4 Take more care p5
Planning supervisors should be required to obtain NEBOSH as a minimum, at present they are
not required to have any qualifications.
d4 Control measures were all in place - acceptable level of risk, greater care and possibly o4
additional personnel could have been utilised. Unforeseeable accident - more caution and
vigilance
d4 Take more personal care
d4 More care by IP
d4 Due diligence o6
Increase awareness of hazards
d4 More care with heavy steel equipment, stress that even the most experienced people should take d13
care at all times
126

d4 Yes, safe system of working rules in force in company and greasy / wet feet not recommended.
More care required at all times.
d4 Awareness
d4 Be more careful
d4 Take more care and increase awareness
d4 More vigilance. Hand rail changes in scaffold elevation d13
d4 More care with manual handling
d4 No - carelessness on part of ip
d4 Better coordinated awareness
d4 Don't stand too close to risk areas.
d4 Awareness
d4 Care and attention, and work tidy. d11
d4 More awareness and tidiness. d11
d4 More care. Keep hands behind sharp tools.
d4 More care and awareness by IP
d4 Increase safety awareness.
Ensure that those on site do not have too much faith in the driver.
d4 Concentration and suitable experience. d1
d4 More care
d4 More awareness on part of employee p2
Client should have provided better access
d4 More care, use proper lifting methods and procedures. o3
d4 People should be more vigilant. p1
Ensure that all contractors adhere to the same level of health and safety, this would help to
prevent accidents occurring to other contractors.
d4 Be more careful
d4 Take more care on site d11
Do not take short cuts
Housekeeping
Provide signs of workplace dangers
d4 Just Carelessness
d4 More due care and attention
d4 Vigilance and more care
d4 No, other than awareness
d4 More awareness and concentration is required, especially in young workers. d5
d4 Instill more care into the workforce
d4 More care and attention
d4 Not really except care & attention.
d4 No. Concentration
d4 More individual care.
d4 No. Other than awareness.
d4 More care on part of IP
d4 Pay attention o7 p5
Concentrate on tool box talks
Management to work to increase employee awareness
d4 More care. Be aware of dangers
127

d4 More care.
d4 More care
d4 More care. Better housekeeping. d11
d4 Just awareness. Check site for hazards. o4
d4 Increase awareness o4
Different approach to work
d4 No. Must be more aware.
d4 Unsure if tripping hazards address in RA o4
Daily RA required to be undertaken prior to starting working in morning to include trip and
slips. Basically care and attention
d4 Assess weight before moving o4
d4 No, more care on IP's behalf
d4 Increase awareness/concentration
Reduce complacency
d4 Be more aware of what he's doing and wear gloves at all times. d14
d4 More care & attention
d4 Take extra care
d4 No. d5
Lack of concentration / care. Under influence of drugs.
d4 More care and awareness. Put one foot on stairs and one on platform
d4 Awareness and supervision o6
d4 More awareness of tripping hazards.
d4 General awareness. Complacency is a problem o4
Risk assessment of activities
d4 More awareness and care.
d4 More care and awareness of potential dangers
d4 More care by employees
d4 Human error accident. He had been trained in use of abrasive wheel not long before - down to
complacency.
d4 Prevent carelessness
d4 More awareness. Sequencing of activity o4
d4 More care. Stairs were clear.
d4 More awareness.
d4 More Care.
d4 Watch where you are going, be observant d14
Hard hat policy.
d4 Check for obstructions.
d4 More awareness and care.
d5 No (except more concentration)
d5 Very hot conditions and operatives were taking breaks every 2 hours, however operative was d12
too hot and tired. This was unavoidable for this job.
d5 Prevention of substance abuse.
d5 Was working in overtime - 2hrs per night Mon to Thurs. d9 o4
Should have followed the MS more closely, or done job hazard analysis if he was varying from
method statement. Deviated from preferred method of installation
d5 Reduce alcohol consumption the night before
d6 Eye Tests for employee. More care. d4
128

d6 No, IP may have already had a contributory condition
d6 No - fully boarded scaffolding, scaffold pole that he fell onto was tied so it could not be d5
removed, clean site, not obstructed, access restricted re: working areas. IP unsteady on feet,
overweight 16/17st, accident was possibly due to alcohol.
d6 No - this was aggravation of previous injury
d6 Regular medicals should be carried out
d6 No. IP had weak back.
d6 IP had previously injured ankle at previous employment, so his ankle was weak, 50 yrs old too.
One of those things, was fit for work, not walking on unstable ground, not carrying load.
d6 Wear and tear - thought to be long-term health
d6 Old injury. d13
Should have been using power tool.
d7 Menu & Tool Box Talks. Ensure operator aware of your presence before approaching machine. d11
Barriers not feasible. Try to segregate pedestrian routes from operations.
d7 Tool box talks to increase awareness
d7 Toolbox talk to people in yard. Should have been maintaining standard of housekeeping in yard. d11 o5
As a result of discussions with him the standard of housekeeping has improve greatly.
d7 More tool box talks on following procedures
d7 Improve coordination of other trades activities o6
other contractors should not put hazards in place
d7 Improve literacy of employees d9
Increase compliance of safety regulations/policies
Use safety equipment provided
d7 More tool box talks
d7 Refresher toolbox talks
d7 Other trades not considering other people. Risk identification is important. o4
d7 Reiterate tool box talks, and supply extra info on working from ladder, reinforcing need for d8
footing and stabilising.
d7 More Tool Box Talks. Provide information. o2 o7
Modified induction (more briefing).
d7 Encourage employees to slow down.
d7 Where one team is following up the work of another team, the first should brief the latter on
H&S issues.
d7 Better communication between operative and machine operator. Operation could have been d13
conducted mechanically.
d7 Have Tool Box Talk prior to similar activity (not a long time before). Employees that are d14 o7
holding equipment should wear non-slip gloves
d7 Conduct regular toolbox talks o6
Provide instructions on proper operations
d7 Lack of communication between different operations.
d7 Reviewed accident. He should have asked for assistance. o7 o4 d8
Constant discussion and communication about safety. Memos out that reiterate what should be
done. Regular tool box talks. Revise Risk Assessment. Put memos in pay packets.
Introduce a more structured way of working. Constant revision of procedures and ways of
working.
Bespoke course on groundworking and other areas.
d7 Tool box talks about how to store items o4
Risk assessment updated
d7 On location Tool-Box talks. Operatives to seek advice when needed. d8 o7
129

d7 Increase communication. o6
Supervisor disciplined for not giving adequate instructions
d8 Moved into new premises and was some confusion as to which ladders were the correct ones to
take and he took the wrong ones resulting in the accident.
Need better understanding of which ladders were which.
d9 IP should have used mechanical lifting equipment
d9 Rig should be bolted down o3
Method statements must be followed
d9 Operative is to follow instruction and carry out task as trained
d9 Use proper procedures & consider consequences of actions. o3
d9 Very hard to prevent employees climbing up scaffold instead of using ladders
Hard to ensure that they should use ladders, when available, more than they do.
d9 Should use Class 1 Steps (which would not fit into IP's car). d13
d9 Follow procedures - do not work alone. o8 o3 o6
Culture and behaviour. Do not use relations as supervisors.
d9 IP should follow method statement. More awareness o3 d4
d9 IP should stick to job he was employed to do o3
use method statement
d9 Carry out normal practice as IP was doing something not correctly.
d9 Should follow instructions
d9 Had neglected to chain both sides of roller, IP admitted negligence
d9 Follow instruction
d9 Follow Method Statement (which required de-pressurising if there were leaks). Do not rush to o3
leave site earlier.
d9 No, but shouldn't have stood on cage.
d9 IP should follow procedures and method statements o3
d9 Should have dusted area down.
d9 Equipment should be securely fixed before using it. d13
d9 Steps should be erected in the correct position d11
Obstacles should be moved
d9 Use ladder provided to exit vehicle
d9 Do not put hand on blade side. Follow instructions given.
d9 Should use hammer and chisel. But this was not working efficiently. Should use blunt
instrument.
d9 Should stop work until situation safe. o1 d1
Site Personnel should speak English.
Immigrant labour standards not safe.
d9 Nothing. Own fault as had been trained in how to use Chisel but did his own way.
d9 Single stage platform didn't really warrant any steps, but basically he shouldn't have been
jumping off the platform.
d9 Both were informed about manual handling, both knew they should not have been doing the o7
task without mechanical handling aid. Tool box talks and memos were distributed dealing with
the issue.
d9 Should follow instructions.
d9 Should be wearing hat d14
d9 Should follow procedures and wear goggles d14 o3
d9 Use steps on the vehicle to enter
d9 Should not have done it - not doing manual work - have people employed for manual work.
130

d9 Make use of facilitates provided to descend
d9 Follow instructions/guidelines o3
Avoid heavy materials unless absolutely necessary
d9 Follow the method statement. Wear PPE as instructed in Method Statement. o3 d14
d9 Ensure that employees do not lift more than they should o4 p2 o6
Assess and understand work and identify requirements on site (e.g. mechanical lifting)
Increase awareness of managers responsibilities before work commences
d9 IP should follow method statement. Should not enter excavations until safe o3
d9 Should follow procedures, no shortcuts o3
d9 Should have used rigid platform as per method statement
d9 Should have been using alternative tools
d9 Follow method statement details o3
d9 Place feet on correct supports.
d9 Follow Method Statements Use 'bean-bags' for fall protection, these velcro together and are o3 d14
fixed to IP
d9 Should have been using mechanical equipment which was available. d3 o7
Given manual handling techniques and videos in induction.
Rotate staff to do different pieces of manual handling who are suited to lifting various things.
Tool box talks about manual handling and if things are heavy use equipment provided.
Use accident statistics to show employees that accidents do happen with manual handling.
d9 Should have pulled pipe onto a level surface and not on to a bank. Held discussion with o7 o5
everyone on site as to what had gone wrong and what could have been done to prevent it - tool
box talk.
d9 Operators should take more responsibility for their actions o2
Educate operators from a younger age
d9 Use youngman boards. Procedures were not followed o3
d9 Should have used a jigsaw and not a knife.
d9 Operatives should have accessed working platform using appropriate equipment
d9 General care, make sure subcontractors follow procedures. p4
d9 IP should have washed boots immediately
d9 Freak accident, IP not sure what happened, but acknowledged should have footed ladder
Noted that the grandfather rights to the CSCS scheme should remain open, so that anyone who
can prove that they are a time served skilled labourer can join, the scheme should not be closed.
d9 Try to get people to follow instructions. (Shortage of good labour) d10 d1
Quality of Agency staff very poor.
d9 Didn't follow instructions.
d9 Use your own tools, don't borrow them. d13
d9 Storage is the responsibility of IP
d9 Employees must follow method statements o3
d9 Main contacter should be switched off during relocation
d9 Some doubt as to account of accident.
Was doing something that supervisor told him not to do - was told by subcontractor to do it as a
favour.
If been instructed by foreman would have been given task talk and accident could have been
prevented - comes back to risk assessment and method statements being used correctly.
d9 Follow Method Statement o3
d9 Follow instructions d13
Use tools - drills and hammers
Exclude body force to open doors
131

d9 Employees should follow method statement. o3
d9 Everything was in place, a safe route had been provided, but shouldn't have been on site and
hadn't been instructed to carry out the task. He was taking a shortcut to the skip which had also
been coned off (road cone).
d9 Employees should not over-reach and ensure that ladder evenly footed.
d9 Use tools you are used to rather than borrowed' ones which function in a different way. d13
d9 Have had ARC meeting - accident review committee meeting - this was identified as manual
handling incident - repeatedly instructed how to lift them - not to toss, and lift one at a time.
Trying to do quick job rather than take time and do carefully. Will be retrained in man hand.
Given tool box talks once per week.
d9 Should follow method statement. o3
d9 Nothing - down to his own negligence.
d9 IP should not have been up ladder
Do not do favours for others
d9 Operatives should use correct access facilities
d9 No, employees should follow instructions
d9 Should use correct equipment to do the job d13
d9 Should follow instructions. Closer supervision. o6
d9 Shouldn't wear overshoes on stair case.
d10 No - cannot stop using work experience operatives as the industry relies on them, and difficult
to influence their attitudes.
d10 More personnel to support potentially dangerous structures. o4
d10 More hands on site. Drilling plant rather than hand tools. o4
d10 None. Could put board down but then could not do the work.
d10 Unfortunate accident - 18 stone person working on mobile tower - wrong person to do task. o6
d11 Signs to be placed on windows informing others that weights are not fitted o4
Window weights to be fitted sooner
d11 Manhole should be cornered off.
d11 Nothing to offer Notifier was not familiar with the site and is unsure whether floor was slippy or
if manhole cover needed replacing
d11 Believed that top stair was slightly under the cabling reducing the depth of the tread, but never
been problematic and never identified as a hazard. Stairs could have been repositioned, but were
later replaced in concrete.
d11 The hazard should have been covered with steel plates.
d11 Install hard-core to give a firm surface.
d11 Ensuring that leaks are fixed. Notices are posted if hazard identified - i.e. attention wet floor. o6
One of those things.
d11 Maintaining good access. Housekeeping
d11 Site tidier, wearing knee pads d14
d11 Install guard rails at slopes on site.
d11 Ensure temporary coverings can't skid
d11 Maintaining safe access to and from the point of work
d11 Install dry access to ladders
d11 Provide more cover to exposed joists.
d11 Keep site tidy and improve awareness. d4
d11 Yellow caps on protruding bars to protect employees
d11 Keep materials tidy
132

d11 Site management to ensure that site is kept clean and tidy and that materials are not stored in o6
working areas
d11 Improved housekeeping. Signing In and Out of cartridges. Improve Competence . (Lapse of d1 o3
procedure).
d11 Very unfortunate. The use of polythene cannot be avoided, and it was possibly slightly damp
d11 Loft access modified (completely) accident potential eliminated. o4
d11 Anti slip mats on stair cases d4
increase awareness
d11 Improve housekeeping
d11 Ensure site tidiness. Site was 'aggravated' by fly tipping d12
d11 Better pedestrian routing on site. Self awareness. d4
d11 Trip free access as far as possible.
d11 No, Housekeeping was good. The change in level could have been painted with tiger stripes.
d11 Install screening as soon as possible o4
Use signs
d11 Housekeeping
d11 Ensure protective boards are secured with screws or nails o3
d11 Do not use bubble wrap for protection
Have dedicated pedestrian routes
d11 Make stairs less steep if possible, but was not possible in this case due to space restrictions
d11 Housekeeping p5
Main contractor should act on CDM and Health and safety policy rather than focusing on 'little /
easy ' things
d11 Step ladder slipped on floor. Use of non-slip surface under ladder.
d11 Good housekeeping
Cage area to contain scaffold tubing
d11 Do not leave unprotected holes.
Provide covers and barriers.
d11 Spillages may have made floor wet, however this is unknown. Perhaps an alternative material o12
should have been used for the flooring, as Gorrex may not have been suitable
d11 Make pathways wider
d11 Ensure that work surfaces are not slippery d4
Don't rush
d11 Difficult, ground was typical of a normal construction site - uneven, excavations, etc.
d11 Cover boards should be fully fixed to floor and spray painted to make operatives aware of
hazards.
d11 Improved warnings for uncovered holes. People being more vigilant of the risks around them. d4
d11 Proper attention to roping off areas of potential danger
d11 Tripping hazard created by the difference between levels, not sure if it would have been
possible to avoid
d11 Housekeeping error, not making full use of storage facilities. Communicated through tool box o7
talks
d11 Clearer access, consider alternative access routes and possibly better scheduling o4
d11 Continual improvement - reminder to keep sites kept tidy. o7
d11 Ensure that people are kept clear of FLT operations o4 o6
Pre-separate split loads
d11 Hole covered with 'polystyrene'. Should have metal cover and marking cone.
d11 Allow space for work - be aware. d4
133

d11 Try to keep surfaces dry.
d11 Dry the floor before deploying ladder
d11 Use non-slip floor or mats
d11 Not preventable
Make sure footway is flat and level
d11 Door should be locked (secured) back
d11 Housekeeping
d11 Better housekeeping, stepped onto piece of timber from a packing case, could have been
prevented with some care and tidying up.
d11 Provide correct access.
d11 Planks covering hole should be fixed
Do not cover man-hole covers with temporary fittings, put proper man-hole cover on.
d11 Better housekeeping , being vigilant. d4
d11 Mark out walkways. Keep site tidy.
d11 Additional working lights
d11 Don't leave manholes uncovered
d11 Housekeeping, to avoid trips
d11 Keep the site tidy
Debris should not be in close proximity to the employee. If it does fall it will be less likely to
strike the worker
d11 Remove kerbs. (2 accidents in a month). More awareness / different awareness is needed for a d4
city centre site.
d11 Keep sites tidy.
d11 Damp area should have been treated (cleaned etc)
Fence the risk area
d11 Remove rubble immediately
Walk around rubble rather than take shortcuts
d11 More care and attention, more awareness, switch room access could have been improved with o4
fixed steps and impose restrictions on entry to room.
d11 Improve general tidiness.
d11 Warning barriers around holes
d11 Deploy more warning signs
d11 Access routes and ground conditions should be kept clear
d11 Improve housekeeping (particularly near ladders)
d11 When covering temporary openings, boards should be fixed down securely
d11 Possibly remove / raise scaffold in door area.
d11 Site tidiness checks. More awareness. d4 o5
Offenders that leave hazards should be disciplined
d11 Review removal of surplus materials - and consider possible mechanisation of unloading o4
d11 Improve lighting
Make surface more grippy
d11 Improve site tidiness and awareness of surroundings
d11 Monitor state of floor. Remove any standing water.
d11 Site housekeeping. (Effectiveness of site management). More frequent site walking. o6
134

d11 Site housekeeping. People should act themselves or advise their management of dangerous d7
conditions.
d11 Padding to protect upstands/ corners etc of hop ups.
d11 Ensure ladders are put on clear ground d1
Improve lighting
d11 Stress Subcontractor to continually clear areas. o4 o7
More barriers. Segregate trades.
d11 Diesel spills should be cleaned
d11 Housekeeping d5
Increased alertness
d11 Housekeeping, keep dust sheets flat.
d11 Fill holes temporarily or plywood
d11 Install temporary closures to floor openings flush with surface. Do not let floor protection
reduce visibility of openings.
d11 Better lighting and more barriers
d11 Better housekeeping by principal contractor
d11 Keep access routes clear.
d11 No, due to ground conditions.
d11 Avoid walking on rubble, clear as you work d1
d11 Keep floor dry
d11 Use non slip surfaces to steps
d11 Keep site tidier (not untidy site), just happened that combination of things caused accident
d11 Inspect for small floor differences
d11 Not really, crate was temporary step into the house which was set up by home owner, but was
unstable.
Written risk assessment and method statements were not applicable to the work.
d12 Tie/Fix ladders when in use p4 o3
Senior Management support for H&S
d12 They looked at the steps and they were in good order. d7
IP's safety shoes had mud on them which could have been a factor.
They are making sure shoes are clean of mud when they come inside, this is covered in their
toolbox talks.
d12 Skip should have been cleaned and emptied in the evening so that it did not fill with water o3
d12 Tie cladding panels down when in storage
d12 Fasten door so that it cannot be blown
d12 Should have been two men to lift because of the wind. o4
d12 Beware of windy conditions.
d12 More notice of environmental conditions. o4
d12 Don't normally work at height with glass, but wind got up whilst working, and strong gust came o4
out of blue, caught the unit and twisted IP around. Basically keep a better eye on weather
d12 No, was felt to be a freak accident, no-one knew why the wall fell down. Possibly due to a gust
of wind.
d12 Salt and grit workplace during winter
d12 Skip lids should be tied in high winds.
Manufacturer notified
d12 No could not have been helped, just slipped on wet soil
d12 Conditions were icy - slip
135

d12 Designated footway for icy conditions
Salt pathway
d12 Do not lift board when windy d3
Seek help from colleague
d12 Don't access work face in unsuitable weather
d12 Salt car park and access routes in icy weather
d12 Remove materials to stop them blowing in the wind
d12 More careful observation of weather conditions. o6
d12 Weather prediction different o6
d13 Possibly safer to cut ties on scaffolding. d4
More care from IP
d13 Replace ramps with lighter version o4
Should use two operatives, not one.
d13 Better anti-slip on access ladders.
Couldn't use scissor-lift on ceramic tiles.
d13 Use wooden mallets to install fittings (not hammers) and if necessary cut pipe to remove rather
than try to extract it
d13 Possibly fix boards to scaffold.
d13 Avoid using canopies
Push stakes in further
d13 Use scaffold (appropriate access) rather than a hop-up.
d13 Install a non-slip ladder
d13 Complete work platform so that 'stepping down is not required.
d13 Should have used a tower, not a ladder
d13 Foam protection on lagging o12
Redesign dog-leg bracing
Easier to reduce severity than prevent accident
d13 Better equipment or alternative procedure o3
d13 Secure boarding to channel to ensure even floor surface - carried out following accident
d13 Wherever possible use trolleys to transport metal.
d13 Use of scaffolding as opposed to ladder
d13 All given gloves. Invent tool to put blocks in, or ensure they are paying attention when putting d5
the blocks in.
d13 None - one off accident.
Ropes on hiab to prevent swinging could have prevented accident.
d13 Doors had been fitted for security purposes so that areas could be closed off, however the d1
hydraulic arm had not been adjusted properly, this was done following the accident.
d13 Use equipment that can detect cabling 20mm below ground
d13 Ban mobile phones on site. o3
d13 Use an alternative tool where appropriate
d13 Don't use starter handle - use electrical start
d13 Mechanical equipment for cutting o4
No moving M/C near bar
Take off area
d13 Use proper access equipment
d13 Use hand grabs on machine d4
Reduce complacency
d13 Could use a lift and shift.
136

d13 Use ring spanners - open enders fly off d14
Wear gloves (PPE)
d13 Use mechanical plant for this type of activity
d13 Mechanical hoist o12
Reduce size of deck plate
d13 Do not use manual labour
d13 Scaffold board should lift to fascia board.
d13 Bundle boards and lower with hoist where practical (or use crane)
d13 Ensure that the top on steamer is fitted correctly
Re-design steamers
d13 Use appropriate dumper relative to ground conditions o4
d13 This type of insulation was supposed to be used to cover rafters where there are no joints. Use d14
fall nets.
d13 Circles weren't fully fitted. d1
Measure clip prior to fitting an is fully seated. Use correct parts.
d13 Carry debris in buckets
d13 Holding down bolts should have cover to prevent similar accident. Could be painted Hi-Viz. d11
d13 If thread goes on screw don't use, should have used fresh one, as the groove had worn away. d1
d13 Minimise steps in scaffolds (if steps essential put them on external corners).
d13 Small scale 'sock' if available might help but did not seem to be available.
d13 Improve fastenings for gate
Need system for driver to advise site management on gate requirements
d13 Use of air lance may be effective
d13 Torque devices don't work. No suggestions
d13 Use of lifting equipment such as a beam could have prevented the 'spin' o7
Used safety awareness talks & tool box talks.
d13 Use machine to lift beam rather than handle manually.
d13 Increase the leverage of the heel bar rather than using excessive force. d3
Use mechanical force
Ask colleague for assistance
d13 Don't use scaffold board to block window frames. (Bricklayers tend to use scaffold boards for
temporary props). Now prohibited.
d13 Ladder must be secured/tied
d13 Foot / tie ladder
Use steps
d13 Re-position scaffolding to remove first hazard
Remove timber (trip hazard).
d13 Use other apparatus to carry materials
d13 Better securing of ladder base when located on PVC membranes. E.g. ladder stops.
d13 Prohibit use of side boards, use of step ladders and use of stable landing points
d13 Make sure that ladder is level
Secure it at bottom
d13 Use electric starter
d13 Mechanical handling of equipment
d13 Use of correct youngman boards and do not remove guard rails
d13 Use Safety catches on hooks to prevent it from disengaging
137

d13 Reinforce training - immediately d3 o2
Improve footing of ladder for 1 person usage
Try and allow employees to work in twos
d13 Use fixed access ladders or a second man to foot ladder. d3
d13 Don't work off ladders use scaffolding or cherrypicker o3
d13 Use mechanical movers d11
d13 Possible use of mechanical lifters
d13 Better use of ladder, or use of scaffold.
d13 Doors did have catches which were supposed to keep door open but did not work. They have
fitted doors with catches to hook open the door so the wind can blow without closing the door.
d13 Just "Act of God". Could use foot ladder.
d13 Possible additional guard. o4
Should mount mixer away from trip hazard
d13 Use small tower scaffold for repetitive tasks.
d14 Wear hard hats
d14 Remove boots/ clean boots to stop slippage
d14 He had a written warning about this and had inductions, safety workshops and toolbox talks but d9
continued to wear trainers to work.
Now they have tightened up on PPE and if they are wearing wrong PPE they are sent home and
not allowed to work. Tightened up on procedures.
d14 Wear safety glasses
d14 Goggles issued. Supervise to ensure eye protection worn where necessary. o6
d14 People should wear appropriate PPE
d14 Better, more appropriate footwear. d4
Awareness of site conditions
d14 Safety equipment to be used
d14 Improve protection d5
Regular breaks
d14 Goggles to be worn to prevent foreign matter entering eyes d8
previously unaware that plaster contained so much lime
d14 Eye protection should have been worn.
d14 Should wear PPE (Hard hat)
d14 Kneeling pads might help.
d14 Should have known better anyway, but both gloves should be kept on until all work is
completely finished.
d14 Wear gloves wherever possible
d14 IP should wear gloves for this type of activity
d14 Ensure that safety gloves are worn
d14 Wear gloves.
d14 Supplying goggles. d4
General Awareness.
d14 Should have been wearing gloves, are provided.
d14 Wear PPE
d14 Goggles (though not ideal)
138

d14 Seek to identify source: d11
Correct footwear?
Slippy - oil, water, grease etc
Adequate notices
and also increase vigilance
d14 'Seat belt' to attach IP to ladder to stop him jumping
d14 Wear Gloves (PPE)
d14 Wear high visibility clothing
d14 Get correct consistency for concrete d1
Wear goggles
d14 No possibly wear gloves
d14 Wear safety glasses
d14 Wear gloves.
d14 Revised the PPE. Gloves being worn were inadequate.
d14 Wear gloves
d14 Straight forward accident, no build up, using working methods as specified, and was supervised.
Was wearing helmet, which fell backwards as he slipped and he hit his head on pipework.
d14 Wear eye protection o3
Improve method of working
d14 Use safety screens or undertake operations in protected area o4
d14 Wear gloves. Ensure tools not worn, avoid complacency. o10 d4
d14 Wear eye protection for this type of activity
d14 All accidents investigated. Cause was identified as a faulty boot. New boots issued.
d14 Wear goggles
d14 More supportive boots
d14 Wear PPE.
d14 Wear helmet d4
Be more observant
d14 Not likely to re-occur
Safety footwear
d14 Were goggles really being worn? (as claimed)
d14 Internal investigation on incident. Wearing PPE as specified, footwear, glasses, hat, dusk mask,
overalls, gloves, etc. PPE added to accident - in mist of clearing floor, stepped back and slipped,
put hand down to stop fall.
If he had not been wearing it all, he would have been aware of bracketing on floor. All
barracked off. Glasses misted up a bit due to face mask.
Floor had been painted, other areas composite tile, but as painted offered less resistance to
aluminium so acted as a banana skin.
Could not come up with what could be better.
Have done a lot of high risk work on this contract without any hitches but a low risk task caused
the accident.
d14 Put pair of gloves on, had gloves available. It is general practice to wear gloves but did not for
some reason.
d14 Wear cut resistant gloves
d14 Wear gloves d4
Increase awareness of problems
d14 Wear goggles
d14 Ensure vehicle lights are working o10
Check footwear/ PPE for abrasions/soiling/grease.
139

d14 Clean steps/boots.
d14 Put offices at ground level o4
PPE for office staff when on site
High ankle protection - more support
d14 Heavy gloves to stop jamming fingers
d14 Wear PPE - gloves.
d14 Wear protective clothing d4
Be sensible
d14 Gritter access reviewed. Ankle support boots now specified as mandatory. d11
o1 Don't employ a "Brian" (reference to first name of IP - 3 accidents and only reportable accidents
by company)!
o1 Don't employ idiots!
o1 Main contractor to employ English speaking personnel
o1 Vet and assess who is employed. d9
Identify why IP was up scaffolding when he should not have been
o1 Down to workforce to improve general housekeeping, the site foreman goes around and keeps d11 02
reminding them to tidy up site. More aware of general housekeeping - more training towards
housekeeping. Missing apprentices which are not college trained - need when finish school and
train them from there - so that they are aware of surroundings. Need to learn from day one -
housekeeping
Need common sense from people working on site
o1 Ensure that employees are given a medical before they are employed - the activities they d6
perform can then be specified so as to prevent possible injury
o1 National Register of contract personnel to select staff. e2
Gaps in CDM regulations do not address quality of staff sufficiently.
o2 Manual handling training
o2 Train machine operators o3 o7
More precise specification of procedures
Tool box talks
o2 Not in this case. o7
Generally:
Encourage induction training. Toolbox talks where appropriate.
Working to complete workforce being CSCS card holders by end 2003.
o2 Training / experience.
o2 Better training of sub-contractors, more awareness d4
o2 Education about safe use of steps
o2 Improve manual handling training o4
Reduce the distance that materials have to be carried.
o2 As a result went through issues associated with working from ladders - training not to work o7
solely from a ladder, tied off, etc. - tool box talk.
Not 3 metres off ground.
o2 Keep up training
o2 Change training arrangement. Revisit risk assessment o4
o2 Retraining. d4
Operative awareness.
o2 Better training- beware loose clothing.
o2 Raise awareness of slip hazards.
o2 'Time windows' may be too tight for safe working. More training, more care, do not rush o3 d4
140

o2 Manual handling lifting training o7
toolbox talks
o2 Safety leaver should be operated on the digger.
Training to the above
o2 Keep emphasising manual handling
o2 Increase manual handling training. Work within limitations and to know limitations d4
o2 More in depth training
o2 Raise general level of awareness o12
Have pre-made lifting trusses to avoid similar accidents
o2 Training on how to lift o6
send advisors to assist
o2 Show how to use stilsons
o2 Increase manual handling training
o2 CSCS courses o8 d4
General safety awareness
o2 Told that he had to be retested.
Regained qualification - and then was re-inducted
o2 CSCS to increase awareness
Site induction should be improved - make them aware
o2 More training on 'confined space' problems o3
Should follow procedures
o2 H&S awareness training
o2 Better training of foreman and people in charge. Challenge is to educate those who have been in p5 d4 o6
industry for a long time and take advantage of the risks as they are more familiar and have done
it a certain way before and got away with it.
Younger foreman are more vigilant of the risks than the older foreman.
o2 Training
o2 Manual Handling training o7
Briefings
Self responsibility
o2 Improve manual handling training
o2 Refresher course of manual handling - machine specific
Use legs, not body to turn rather than twist
o2 Reinforce good practice
o2 Training for personnel o3
Need a safer method of pouring agent into container
o2 Reinforce manual handling training. Ensure sufficient personnel are available to assist lifting. o6
o2 CSCS cards o6 o7
Site inductions should be improved, need supervisors' support - keep reminding employees
o2 Training should be given earlier in course. College teaching 'out-dated' methods.
o2 Make sure that a safety induction is held before work starts or is allowed on site. o3 p2
No one should be within close proximity of such a large load (20 tonnes) being lifted.
More client contact of awareness - planning, knowledge of what risks, operations, and
procedures are involved - all contracted people should be aware.
o2 Improve manual handling training o4
Do not put heavy loads upstairs
o2 Better training
141

o2 Additional training on manual handling, including the possibility of aggravating of old injuries.
More experience is required in knowing when to use manual force or continue cutting through
lintel.
o2 Training of personnel.
o2 Training in lifting weights
o2 Manual handling refreshers. o9
Fit lifting devices to vehicles to reduce manual handling.
o2 Re-educate to be more careful when moving on site d4
Increase awareness of immediate surroundings
Be more careful when on foot
o2 CITB courses d14
H & S courses
Signs and procedures & equipment
o2 No, only manual handling training.
o2 Refresher training of ladders
o2 Manual handling training d14 d4
Encourage PPE wear
Be vigilant
o2 'Health and Safety training'
o2 Raise awareness and training of workforce
o2 Refresher course that uses a new style of presentation.
o2 Further training. o3 o9
Substitute drilling for hammer work
Better, more stable work platforms
o2 Convinced CSCS cards going along right route and can only do good.
o3 Write method statements d14 p5 o7
PPE
Ensure that subcontractors are working inline with PCs H&S policies
Issue copies of H&S policies to contractors
o3 Transport the plasterboard flat.
o3 Briefing note on how to store equipment
o3 Issue instructions - use steps, fully extended, use equipment properly
o3 Generator should be switched off for refuelling o9
Hose to be correct length
More robust grill design
o3 Band sleepers prior to loading. Do not forklift when other personnel are not visible o3
o3 I.P should follow procedures. d9
Scaffolding should be secure.
o3 Sent memo to all supervisors stating that all debris and material left by other trades should be
removed before the structure is dismantled.
o3 More control measure. R.A from ground level forget 2 metre limit. o4
o3 Firm up on working practices in moving machines e.g. must have a banks man to operate. d14 o2 d5
Highlight dangers at induction stage, wear high-visibility where possible.
Maintenance of concentration, ref to "Jaguar approach" emphasis on method statement - will be
pleased to speak further on this if we would like. Very keen to keep in touch with BOMEL.
o3 Focus more on how work is sequenced so that employees work from platform rather than o4
ladders - difficult to do with re-work
o3 Follow site plan - the activity concerned was not part of the contract. Better policing/supervision o4 o6
142

o3 Do not handle steel when craned - if necessary, hold the outside of the flange.
o3 Appropriate specification QA of joist hangers.
o3 Different arrangement of slinging load
o3 Do not carry too much
o3 Change procedure to use mechanical equipment (e.g. hydraulic turfors) to lower other tackle.
o3 Not a risk until he did it. Belts pallet instruction
o3 Offload way round they are loaded. d14
Wear gloves
o3 Do not work in mud. Keep PPE clean. d10 d12
o3 Looked at particular operation, modified procedure increase awareness. d4
o3 Underlying cause was the suspension of works due to the arrival of utilities. Before works
recommenced the workforce was reallocated. In the interim the contractor had inadvertently
mislaid the utilities plans and site foreman (who should had done detection of utilities) had not
obtained new utilities plans, had sourced the domestic supplies but not the 11kV. Proceeding
without drawings on site was main problem.
o3 Window should have been spilt into two so would have been two loads instead of one big one.
o3 Need a procedure for working at height with Dry Boards etc.
o3 Change method statement
o3 Recommendations - reviewed risk assessments and included instructions relating to procedure o4
in lifting man hole covers, given info around about where can obtain manhole cover keys,
general warning for staff.
o3 Job will be "one man only" and procedures will be emphasised.
o3 Make sure aluminium plate held firmly in jig. Tool box talks. o7
o3 Keep machine clean to prevent jamming. Use cushion between hammer and pin. o10
o3 Drums shouldn't be stacked 3 high
Improved materials handling procedures.
o3 All new cables are unwrapped beforehand off site d14
Maintain the use of gloves, goggles, hard hats etc.
o3 Do not load bogey so that plates can trap personnel. Floor plates have been redesigned to reduce 012
the size for improved handling.
o3 Do not use trestles without H/Rails and youngman boards.
o3 Revise method statement
Remove old glass from a distance
o3 Avoid manipulating damaged parts - turn gas off and replace faulty component o6
Seek support from supervisor
o3 Clamping components being cut
o3 Do not use mobile scaffold for this height and activity - mobile elevated platform would be
more suitable. (eliminates repositioning)
o3 Dismantle equipment and carry upstairs o7
Tool box talk
Report to site management when plant arrives
o3 Disconnect breaker from hose during transport
o3 Update method statement
o3 Use ladders to provide access to scaffolding
Provide board under ladder if soft ground or grass.
o4 Greater use of mechanisation, however this is restricted by working space. Try to mechanise as
much as possible
o4 Improve basic safety assessments.
143

o4 Checklist for all aspects with Yes/No tick boxes, e.g. what PPE is needed. Any special
conditions? Used for all jobs.
o4 Need to know operational information for equipment what hazards - awareness. d4
o4 Make a good survey for potential hazards.
o4 Floor works should have been completed or barriered.
o4 Do not improvise. Properly designed Lifting points should be incorporated and used. o12
o4 Work off stilts- intermediate step up now employed
o4 Board out hazards as early as possible.
o4 Close road when works are in progress
o4 Review procedures of vehicle movement on site, certain areas have now been cordoned off and
traffic routes have been changed. Changes agreed with Prison Service
o4 Two-stage quick hitch current in use, could make use of one-stage system instead which would
ensure that all work could be done by 1 person in cab. This would remove the need for a second
person and the need to jump from cab.
o4 More strategic planning of material arrivals on site d13 d7
Reduce manual handling
Check scaffolding
Ask for assistance
o4 Change the order of work so that access can be improved
o4 Work should be carried out progressively, avoid standing on loose material, keep eyes open
o4 More thought in layout of site in design. Fast track sites don't allow enough room for stacking d11
materials, etc. No room for skip etc.
o4 Segregate deliveries from arrivals d11
Improve housekeeping
o4 Check ladders before use.
o4 More planning with main contractor to allow mechanical handling
o4 Insist mortar delivered within the site compound. Do not manual handle. o3
o4 Inspection of area prior to shoring
o4 Improve risk assessments and methodology p1
Specialist/ diamond company brought in to do drilling
o4 Risk assessment o9
Mobile tower/ step ladder to access work place.
o4 Minimise manual handling
Shorten the route
o4 More planning - use scaffolding if preferred
o4 Limited space on site, difficult access issues, should have been specifically instructed about d11
gaining access - I.e. go on hand and knee as opposed to bending back
o4 Yard layout redesigned, so Hiab could make direct pick eliminating manual handling
o4 Revise Risk Assessment to consider strength of wind. d12
o4 Risk assessment on door that relates to wind conditions. Individual should take more personal d4 d12
care. Level of container should be changed
o4 Have material offloaded where it is needed, rather than transporting them across site
o4 Do not locate material piles 180 degrees from mixer. Should be alongside to eliminate twisting.
Possibly lower site mixer.
o4 Cone locations were dangerous. d8
More awareness content in induction
o4 This type of work should only be done when house is unoccupied then power tools can be used.
o4 See if there is another way of doing job and choose the better option.
144

o4 Crane roller into place rather than use ramp d14
Wear fewer layers of clothes to increase manoeuvrability
o4 Correct documentation. Installation was badly wired.
o5 Recall this particular incident and point out how and why it happened
o5 Minimise exposure to the risk o2 o9
Train employees to move away
Remote/laser measurement of piling progress
o5 Review incidents and stress need for crew and site observation d4
o5 Stairway had been looked at and decided that it was not a risk (only 3 steps). Now they cover
over anything over 3 stairs high and make a platform so that people do not fall.
o5 Employer should report accident o6 d4 d8
Review supervision procedures
Understanding of health and safety materials
Greater awareness of young persons shortcomings
o5 Extra tool box talks - don't walk backwards. Clear barriers from outside
o5 Safe system of work - take in all known incidents d4
- Keeping awareness up
- Get assistance
o5 Site safety awareness. Ensure risks for other S/C are managed. o8
o5 Incident analysis. More care & attention d4
o6 More supervision and care d4
o6 Changing behaviour. People revert when not supervised.
o6 Managers have too much pressure - sends labour down to work without a proper explanation of p4 o7
how, who, what, where, when the work is to be done. etc
Senior management should guide the process
o6 More supervision from principal contractor re slippery surfaces
o6 More supervision - There was better access available than that used.
o6 Reinforce instructions on handling objects, but IP had weakened back condition from years of d6
incorrect lifting procedures
o6 Constant monitoring
Regular checks
o6 Should instruct that it's one man job
o6 Supervision of young persons. Executing tasks in safe areas.
o6 Better management from main contractor. Timescales were too short and all finishing trades p4 o4
were trying to get into flats at one time causing overcrowding. Materials were being stored in
the flats too far in advance of work being carried out. Main contractor had been requested to
move carpets on several occasions but no action had been taken.
o7 Tool box talk
o7 Told people that they should be doing an 'on-site' Risk Assessment and if there is any added risk o4
involved e.g. the weather is bad, they should consider its effects. This was formally
disseminated to the workers and minuted at their site safety meeting.
o7 Toolbox talks
explain more about human body and limits
o7 Education by Tool-Box. More Care. d4
o7 Increase ladder safety - talks with employees.
o7 People shouldn't use unsafe scaffolds - main contractor must act on s/c comments.
o7 More communication between trades on site.
145

o7 Inform workforce of hazards, held toolbox talks using the IP as an example and to deliver the o4
talk.
Look for potential shortcuts prior to works commencing and whilst identifying possible hazards,
eliminate the short cuts where possible, if not possible then inform work force of hazards and
instruct them only to use safe routes.
o7 Tool box talks o2 o9
Manual handling training
Shorten length of scaffold tubes (they already do this)
Take advice from independent body (NASC)
o7 Tool box talks on site - describe different types of plants - where have evidence show it p5
including photos of injury - explain what happened and why accident happened.
Real-time Site Safety and Environmental Guide - describes all operations company does and
what personnel do, all kinds of protection - Part of site induction - have to read it and sign to say
read it and understands - makes people more aware of the risks and what can happen, makes
them more careful.
They talked about it with the IP and other person present - what went wrong, why it happened,
what can be done to prevent it - got them involved in solving the problem. Conclusion was that
they will now use steel bars to manoeuvre the pins in future cases similar to this.
o7 Main contractor should ensure other trades do not go up on scaffold or remove things from p5 d9
scaffolding.
Had documentation in place but removal / replacement of boards and tie bars was still
happening after this accident (could have killed IP).
o7 Tool box talks
o7 Toolbox talks
o7 Issued warning to educate, must ensure that gloves are worn, toolbox talks now include this o2 d14
o7 Improved tool box talks d13
Had attended safety awareness course
ladder stays
o7 Tool box talks. Self awareness d4
o7 Gave all tool box talk. Down to planning etc. o4
Using mechanical equipment rather than hand held - tell employees when to use each through
tool box talks and briefings and work specific briefings.
o7 Tool box talk. Use of PPE. Training analysis o2 d14
o7 Tool box talks regarding slips, trips & falls and manual handling.
o7 Communicate around the site. Try to improve awareness. d4
o8 Do not take short cuts d4
Always take care when cutting equipment
o8 Safety awareness at home - training course given to enact a change in safety attitudes at home e4 o7
and work - the idea being to change overall lifestyle attitudes to safety.
toolbox talks were given on ladder awareness
o8 More attention to safety
o8 Do not rush
o8 Be proactive, not reactive d4
Be vigilant
o8 Should have been a two man life, a culture change required. Stop them thinking they are
stronger than they are through training and education.
o9 Maybe use company not client's ladder
o9 Redesign cutters with an autostop/ brake and or protector to cover blade
o9 Deliver blocks that are well banded
o9 Crate materials rather than use banding.
146

o9 Have already improved vehicle design: when tipper is up and vehicle attempts to move a
speaker informs the driver that the tipper is up. After 5 metres of movement, an external speaker
announces the same message to others in the vicinity
o9 Improve quality of ramps - semi wood / semi steel
o9 Don't use stirling boards* to cover manholes - use plywood or similar.
* When wet loses strength.
o9 Better quality tools. Learning cheapest and least expensive are two different things.
o9 Work practices - towers are not worker friendly and access is often difficult. Design for safety 04
access.
o9 Working towards mechanising the process of lifting but it is very expensive.
o9 Power failure disabled the lights. Use back power? Provide torches.
o9 Mesh type gates should be used as they do not react to wind to the same extent as solid ones.
o9 Recommend that all boxes fitted with restraint arms to prevent the lids from falling down.
o9 Possible use of mechanical handling
o9 Suppliers must ensure safe packaging and inspection prior to shipping
o9 Better stronger banding / strapping for heavier loads
o9 Vehicle cabs are too high to step down from.
o9 Lighter weight sign (re-design) o4 d4
Use vans, not flat beds to discourage/ remove need to jump
Increase awareness training
o9 Manufacturers should think about not using shields. Deploy tougher glass so that there would be
not need for the use of shields
o9 Trestles not to be used, recommend scaffolding. d11
Better house-keeping.
o9 Modified tooling so that platform is not more than 300mm below opening.
o9 Produce kerbs in smaller sizes. o2
Upgrade manual handling training (refreshers) - train as a team.
o9 Should be a mechanical handling activity
o9 Re-manufacture Mastic blocks so that they do not stick together.
o9 Could clamp a block to door to prevent need to reverse drill. Could be pre-drilled in machine
shop.
o9 Improve state of skips o3
Improve loading specifications for skips
o9 Manufacturers are to notify holding clip which suffers from V.V degradation. Replaced with
rubber component.
o9 No longer using timber chocks, now using metal chocks. Use of power tools and torque setting o3
has revised procedures. Should have been using mobile tower.
o9 Change material chevron board so that it doesn't go brittle when cold
o9 Redesign compressors so outlets are high up and not at knee height.
o9 More investment in mechanical handling equipment (Manual handling training is not the
answer)
o9 Discontinue use of this type of scaffolding.
(This type not used on site generally.)
o9 Proper manual handling assessment of the work that is required d13 o4 o2
Consider possible lifting aids
Consider what training and instructions are needed
o9 Not really in this case, other than not making ceiling hangers so sharp, but that could not have
been predicted.
147

o9 The quantity in which banded supplies are delivered should be reduced to ensure they are more
stable - like to see max of 4
o9 Using set of 18 stilsons, recommend using longer tool to take hands further away from point of
impact
o9 Take care not to drop components. Should not modify manufactured goods. d4
o10 Maintain temporary access/steps etc appropriately
o10 Better inspection of scaffold boards
o10 Defective vehicles & plant must be repaired before use.
o10 Weekly scaffolding inspections
o10 Proactive inspection.
o10 Ensure scaffold boards are fit for purpose
o10 Periodic inspection of cabin on long duration sites
o10 Possibly could have had some grease, but type of activity that is done every day, maintenance
not generally a problem.
o10 Ensure timber treads are fit for purpose.
o10 Tightened up on checking on conditions of trailer - weekly inspection
o10 More frequent risk assessments would have identified that the tractor was not the correct engine. o9 04
Redesign of the components involved.
o10 Keep vehicle stock to a minimum o4
Give instructions to workers not to hold excessive materials in stock.
o10 Ensure all faulty equipment is promptly reported and not used.
o10 Replace faulty equipment, o9 d4
Do not extend (lean) too far.
o10 Checks on equipment prior to use + training & supervision to ensure that equipment is o2
maintained properly. Possible use of electrical starter.
o11 Incentive schemes to encourage long term service. A key issue for safety is long term service
o11 Have breaks away from workplace
o12 Slots for handle grips (re-design)
o12 Prefer to route services at high level.
Not below false floor which is exposed during construction.
o12 Improve scaffold design d9 o5
If a hazard has been identified, it must be rectified
Follow safety advisors warning
o12 Design that allows panels to be directly installed by crane.
o12 More consideration of the operation to be done. d4 d14
Risk assessment on concrete finishing
PPE to be modified.
o12 Design / positioning of hydraulic struts should be reviewed.
o12 Issues with Severn Trent Water:
Recess for grating over weir increased from 1" to 2" for increased stability
Improved regime of securing grating, ensuring that all brackets are in place
o12 Make a bigger sub-assembly at ground level
o12 Force use of scaffolding for this type of activity
o12 This particular part of the sequencing was due to a design change enforced by the programme, if
programming and sequencing had remained unchanged he would not have had to do it -
therefore programming issue overall.
Other than that just considered unfortunate accident
o12 No. This type of lamp-post gradually being replaced.
148

p1 Get clients to recognise and pay for health and safety. p5 o2 p7
Resources for training - availability of fully skilled personnel
training and education
p1 Principal Contractor should enforce H & S Regs. with Subcontractors.
p2 Increase toolbox talks to show senior management commitment to safety o7
p2 Temporary accommodation on sites must be sound, secure and checked regularly for damages. o11
Main contractor should take responsibility for their equipment/facilitates.
p4 Principal Contractor should ensure groundworks completed and tidy prior to other activities
p4 Too much fragmentation, single point contact would allow better understanding of conditions
p4 Lies in hands of main contractor, should not allow work to take place above or beside operator
working in particular area, had been handed over so work should have been completed by this
stage
p5 Weighing up cost and time of H&S against risk. Tight programmes. d14 o9
Told to wear goggles which are supplied, but can be taken by someone else, which encourages
the operative to take a chance. Could have been prevented by supplying hard hats with built in
visor, this provides a situation where labourers have no excuse not to wear goggles.
p5 Make operatives aware of safety - by using CDM. o7
If anything is observed that could be of a hazard the operatives are made aware immediately.
p5 Management system failure. Damage to vehicles had been reported. Scheduled for repairs. But o10
was used before carried out.
p5 Independent company to visit sites and produce report about anything they see - acting as o7 o2 d4
quality officer.
Give tool box talks on what they see.
Site supervisors course
Eternal vigilance - all know what they should be doing but they do not do it.
Very serious problem - site safety
p5 Use health and safety consultants for advice
p5 Principal contractor should make regular inspections to ensure Site Safety.
p5 Main contractor/ statutory authorities should not 'tear the ground up' once scaffolding comes o4
down - I.e. services should be installed when scaffolding is up.
p5 "H & S People Ltd" do weekly audits, lift cables to high level, raise awareness. d4
p5 Managers should not engage in physical work as they are responsible for H&S, if they are off
work, they cannot fulfil their H&S responsibilities
p5 Regular policing
p7 Less money pressure. Less time pressure. o7 o1
Communication of Method Statements.
e1 No, the condition of council properties often very poor.
e2 Need a proactive approach from HSE, to offer affordable advice. d14
Wear toe Protectors
e2 Accidents in general on site: o6 d9
HSE should start prosecuting individuals on site who are breaking the law (e.g. not wearing
hard hats), e.g. fining people £50 would get rid of problem in 2 months. Word of mouth will
eradicate problem.
Site managers are daily telling people to wear hard hats, glasses, harnesses, etc - up hill
struggle.
Also have a go at site as well but focus on individuals as well - will change culture of sites and
prevent accidents.
1st offence £50, 2nd offence £100, 3rd offence £500, 4th offence £1000 and after that send
people to prison.
149

e2 Keep all trades men at home - can not eliminate accidents. o4
He has spent a lot of time and money in sending all personnel on a number of safety training
and awareness courses. He has purchased all kinds of PPE and has ensured it is used, but
accidents have still happened. Lack of concentration / awareness. He has had 3 accidents in 19
years.
He believes that HSE should target small companies which do not know what method
statements and risk assessments are and educate them.
e2 Legislate to ensure that employees do not step into open access scaffold.
150
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive

C30 1/98
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C1.10 10/03
ISBN 0-7176-2724-1
RR 139
£20.00 9 78071 7 627240

Construction Accidents

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Construction Accidents

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

HSE

Health & Safety

Sample analysis of construction accidents

Prepared by BOMEL LIMITED for the

RESEARCH REPORT 139

Sample analysis of construction accidents

do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

First published 2003

ISBN 0 7176 2724 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior

written permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,

St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

1.2 SURVEY PROFILE 2

1.4 REPORT LAYOUT 8

2 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION 11

2.1 QUESTION 1 – TYPE OF PROJECT 11

2.2 QUESTION 2 – CDM 14

2.3 QUESTION 3 – CLIENT’S BUSINESS 16

2.4 QUESTION 4 – SIZE OF THE PROJECT 20

2.5 QUESTION 5 – OTHER COMPANIES INVOLVED 24

3 NOTIFIER’S ROLE / POSITION 29

3.1 QUESTION 6 – COMPANY’S ROLE 29

3.2 QUESTION 7 – CONDITIONS OF JOB 33

3.3 QUESTION 8 – METHOD STATEMENTS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS 37

3.4 QUESTION 9 – NOTIFYING COMPANY SIZE 39

3.5 QUESTION 10 – NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SITE 41

3.6 QUESTION 11 – SAFETY INDUCTIONS 42

3.7 QUESTION 12 – SIZE OF SITE 43

4 THE INJURED PARTY 45

4.1 QUESTION 13 – LENGTH OF IP EMPLOYMENT 45

4.2 QUESTION 14 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS 47

4.3 QUESTION 15 – TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT WORK 51

4.4 QUESTION 16 – IP TRADE 52

4.5 QUESTION 17 – LENGTH OF TIME IN TRADE 53

4.6 QUESTION 18 – TRAINING QUALIFICATIONS 55

5.1 QUESTION 19 – LENGTH OF TIME ON SITE 57

5.2 QUESTION 20 – HOURS WORKED 59

5.3 QUESTION 21 – TASK INVOLVED 60

5.5 QUESTION 23 – SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS 65

6.1 RATING OF RESPONSES 75

7.1 TYPE OF PROJECT 79

7.2 SIZE OF SITE 82

7.3 PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR 86

7.4 EMPLOYER SIZE 87

7.5 APPLICATION OF CDM 89

7.6 VALIDATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SELF EMPLOYED INJURED

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 103

8.1 OVERVIEW 103

8.2 CONCLUSIONS 103

8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 105

APPENDIX A PRINT OUT OF QUESTIONNAIRES

The objectives of the project were:

1. To analyse a statistically representative sample of accidents and draw conclusions beyond

2. To obtain additional data on major and over 3-day injury accidents

3. To evaluate the accuracy of construction accident report data

4. To inform the RIDDOR review, particularly in respect of Construction Division needs.

• General site information

• Notifier’s role / position

• The injured party