Watched an interesting safety video yesterday on working at height. They used an example of the same job being completed, once in 1977 and then again in 2017.
The job was to clean Nelsons Column in Trafalgar Square and on both occasions a Blue Peter presenter was involved.
In 1977 John Nokes climbed up a series of bog standard ladders that were "secured" in place by ropes tied around the column, and there is an over hang to negotiate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4YFCJE ... annel=P2BS
In 2017 Konnie Huq did the same, sort of. The entire column was completely surrounded with scaffolding (6 miles worth of poles) and platforms, with steps all the way up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVg15Gq ... DundeeMink
Its a brilliant example of how our approach to health and safety has changed over the years. Can you imagine doing it the John Noakes way ?
Id love to know what the cost difference was.
Safety over the years
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Anorak Extraordinaire
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:55 pm
- 10
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 202 times
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3585
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 363 times
- Been thanked: 660 times
Re: Safety over the years
I remember seeing John Noakes climb the column but simply cannot believe it was in 1977, as it feels much older!! Its definitely a Fred Dibnah type set up and to be fair, he started his TV career around that time.
I get somewhat irritated by people (usually Daily Mail or Express Readers) who grumble about 'elf and safety' and would probably criticise the scaffolding version of this job as excessive. I think its a brilliant example of how we have moved on
By the way, up until circa 1980, I used hook ladders in my job in the fire service. They were one scary ladder and the risks were completely excessive.
A narrow 13ft (4m) long timber ladder with a steel hook at the upper end.
To use it, one smashed the hook into a window, and your weight was suspended on the window cill
Using two ladders, one could climb unlimited heights on the outside of the building, he final height limited only by stamina (I did 80ft/25m)
It was used to gain access or rescue using a rope
Risk assess this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_UfHJ2-zPQ
I get somewhat irritated by people (usually Daily Mail or Express Readers) who grumble about 'elf and safety' and would probably criticise the scaffolding version of this job as excessive. I think its a brilliant example of how we have moved on
By the way, up until circa 1980, I used hook ladders in my job in the fire service. They were one scary ladder and the risks were completely excessive.
A narrow 13ft (4m) long timber ladder with a steel hook at the upper end.
To use it, one smashed the hook into a window, and your weight was suspended on the window cill
Using two ladders, one could climb unlimited heights on the outside of the building, he final height limited only by stamina (I did 80ft/25m)
It was used to gain access or rescue using a rope
Risk assess this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_UfHJ2-zPQ
- witsd
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:37 pm
- 9
- Occupation: Fire safety officer
- Location: Glasgow
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 264 times
Re: Safety over the years
Just looking at that ladder overhang actually made me feel sick.
I'm not sure I can say anything else about it that wouldn't breech the PG rules of this place, so I'll have to leave the other words to your imaginations.
I'm not sure I can say anything else about it that wouldn't breech the PG rules of this place, so I'll have to leave the other words to your imaginations.
We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because 'two' is 'one and one.' We forget that we still have to make a study of 'and.'