Analysis of Incident Investigation Data for Causal Factors
Abstract
Accidents may be caused by various conditions: the worker’s physical and psychological condition, safety rules control, overload at work, lack of manual to prevent accidents from happening. If the worker in poor physical condition, tired and incapable of thinking clearly, he should not be allowed to work any further for safety reasons, and those conditions of workers should be defined by the company’s safety control officers before letting him start the job. Giving overtime to workers also needs careful test of workers’ physical condition. Sometimes exploited may not be equipped with safety terms. Working with dangerous substances, employees should be armed with the manual of dealing with the transport or any equipment.
Incident investigation
Accidents happen when one less expects them. Being a professional does not always save the worker, if he does not follow simple rules of instructions. The workers are not always to blame for accidents, although most of the times they are the cause of them. If we include human factors such as tiredness, daily working routine and other factors from that list, sometimes transports and other equipment can be indirect or direct causes of the accidents. No matter what the causes are, they, sometimes, can cost workers’ lives. Companies dealing with its employees should also consider human factor, that is why there should be in control of their workers’ physical and mental conditions for safety reasons. “If safety management is effective, then there should be an absence of accidents. Conversely, if accidents are occurring then effective safety management must be absent” (Safety Institute of Australia Ltd 2012). However, in reality it is easily said than done. Accidents involve a single fault by the worker, seemingly small, consequently large. Accident preventing has been a topic since the beginning of the industrial revolution, yet it is complex and needs careful additions relating to a specific job, environment, working conditions.
Safety instructions are created in order to prevent accidents from happening, as they are carefully thought over for secure work of the worker in the first place. However, following the instructions can become routine, and that is why end up with carefulness of the worker, whereas he should follow them as it is the first time he is going to work, and as if he is an amateur.
What if there are no safety instructions at all by the company, in that case the company is responsible and guilty of the accident in the first place. Every company is supposed to have safety control team, or an officer who should take care of safety precautions, and prevent potential danger, accidents from taking place.
Life-cost negligence
Negligence at work can put one’s and other people’s lives at risk, as well. When it is concerned with explosives it is much more dangerous to the surroundings and the environment. In the case with the gas tank, the worker’s fault caused him his life and for others it was a life-threatening event. So knowing the rules and instructions can make the worker rely on his experience, but may result in terrible consequences. Sometimes being overload at work can also be the reason of the aftermath, since it may end up with the worker’s tiredness and lack of needed attention. But, not all the accidents are the result of the negligence and carelessness. The consequence may also take place because of the lack of detailed instructions in the worker’s manual. In such cases like that, the employers should be held responsible for the accident, as it is their fault not to include all the possible conditions of the working space, route, or the requirements of customers.
The gas tank driver’s accident
The accident with the driver of the gas tank caused him his life. According to the investigation, there are several errors that have been committed by the employers, hence they had to include all the possible dangers, and take precautions against them. They also had to train the workers accordingly. However, the workers lacking the essential safety rules of the work, particularly venting the tanker, put their lives at risk until one was ended tragically. Errors during the work were: close situation of gas tanks, whereas they had to have distance of 300 feet from each other, lack of qualification, or lack of training among the workers dealing with the venting process of the tanks. Before venting the pipe, the truck had to be driven aside, farther from other ones, although that precaution didn’t occur, since the worker had not been trained appropriately. The worker while venting stood right at the thrusting direction of the pipe, not expecting the power of the thrust. However, according to safety rules he should have stood behind the outlet, preventing the stream hit him to death. Thus his ignorance of the basic rules resulted in risking his life, consequently ending up accordingly.
This case shows that lack of training among workers and undetailed safety instructions in the manual, may cause tragic consequences. Therefore, this type of safety trainings should be organized in advance in order to prevent workers from putting their life at stake.
Overestimating the physical capability
Effectiveness of work lessens, if the worker is given an overtime job. A lot of orders, lack of enough number of workers can be the reason why the employers give overtime to the workers, however, being overload in some jobs can cause damage to the society and danger, risk to workers’ lives and others’. Unsafe acts cause more damage than unsafe conditions (Bakri). An example for such incidents is the accidents with the garbage truck driver.
Garbage truck accident
It is the case of overtime working, where workers usually get exhausted, lose their attention and focus. Unfortunately such conditions sometimes become reasons for unexpected, careless behavior from the workers. In this case the driver of the garbage truck tried to be ready for the next filling on his way back, which caused the breaking of an overpass and his own injury. In order not to wait in line and finish his shift earlier he was rushing to pick up the garbage. However, the truck, that he was driving, was not the one he used to drive a day before, as he used to usually switch cars. Investigation also considers the fact of similar switches on the panel, and that the driver supposedly mixed them by pressing box switch instead of the top door one. The investigators have come to such conclusion as drivers usually open the top door in advance to save time, and be prepared for the customers, as they can get impatient until the door opens. In the distance of one kilometer, the driver supposedly wanted to open the top door, however, he mistakenly may have activated the box and it was rising and hit an overpass. The driver did not notice the rising box, as he was riding fast in order to finish his shift. His fault of pressing the wrong switch was because the switch of top door was at the similar place in one car’s panel with the other’s box lifting switch. Moreover, the switches looked and felt the same way, so it was hard for the driver to identify whether it was the right switch or not, as he was exhausted at the end of the shift, and it was an overtime job, that was he could not be thinking right about the car he was driving. Destroying the overpass he caused damage not only to people’s property, he caused serious injury to himself, and luckily did not lose his life.
The situation, however, has to be looked into from different facets, and primarily the truck manufacturers should have made different switches for top door opening and for box lifting. Secondly, the manufacturer of the truck should also have made a warning, whether visual or audio, for the driver to notice that the box was being lifted. If noise from the car and tiredness from an overtime shift are taken into consideration too, it was very hard for the driver to notice the elevating box. Thirdly, the employer should have checked physical condition of his worker before letting him drive the truck, and giving him an overtime job. Fourthly, for this and other similar cases it can be added the customers’ requirements too, as in this particular situation the clients wanted the driver to pick up the trash as rapidly as possible, which ended with driver’s rush and lack of careful attention. However, they cannot be blamed for the accident, since they are not concerned with the accident directly. Lastly, the driver of the truck should have paid close attention to what car he was driving, or should have changed the switches, or redesign their shape, or just one of the switches in order not to mix them up. This tragic accident could have been avoided, if all the “ifs” above were taken into consideration.
The driver was under pressure of finishing his job as quickly as possible, had poor attitude to the job he was doing due to his physical condition, and took risk, because he was aware of his physical capability and what consequences all conditions might bring. References
Bakri, S. B. (n.d.) Introduction to occupational health and safety. Retrieved from https://mgt1023ehs.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/3-4-dose-response-relationship-3-5-health-and-sensitivity-student-copy.pdf
Safety Institute of Australia Ltd (2012). Models of Causation: Safety. Retrieved from http://www.ohsbok.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/32-Models-of-causation-Safety.pdf
