1 / 13

Manchester Occupational Health & Safety Group

Manchester Occupational Health & Safety Group . Noise as a Health & Safety Issue in Cash in Transit Vehicles Dave Y Marsden, MSc, MIOSH, MCMI Regional Services Manager, Safety Health & Environment. Introduction. Developing the idea Methodology Data Presentation & Analysis

yon
Download Presentation

Manchester Occupational Health & Safety Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Manchester Occupational Health & Safety Group Noise as a Health & Safety Issue in Cash in Transit Vehicles Dave Y Marsden, MSc, MIOSH, MCMI Regional Services Manager, Safety Health & Environment

  2. Introduction • Developing the idea • Methodology • Data Presentation & Analysis • Discussion of the Results • Recommendations & Conclusion • The Situation Now

  3. Developing the idea • The research resulted from allegations, comments & complaints from Cash in Transit crews about the excessive noise in their vehicles. • The forthcoming Control of Noise Regulations 2005 (due February 2006) • Literature review

  4. Methodology • A relatively small study • Aims of research (Based on the literature review ) • 1. To ascertain the actual noise levels experienced by crews in CIT vehicles • 2. To consider how noise levels affect the crews experiencing them • 3. To ascertain what is the crew perception of noise • Methods

  5. Data Analysis & Presentation • Actual Data • 42 Vehicle Tests (22% of northern fleet) from 5 sites • Approx. 250 operational hours noise data • Structured Interview Data • Interviewed all crews of the vehicles tested (84 people) • Length of interviews varied • Questionnaire Data • Issued Questionnaires to Crews 356 • Returned Questionnaires from Crews 129 • %age Returned 36.24%

  6. Data Analysis & Presentation

  7. Discussion of the Results • Lack of Care for Crews • Actual Noise vs. Perceived Noise • Effects of noise on the person

  8. Recommendations & Conclusion Before the formal recommendations were finalised it was felt that some further work was required:- • Scope the problem • Noise Perception • Vehicle design & specification • Management issues • Fault Reporting

  9. Summary of Recommendations 1. Urgent consideration of spending necessary to ensure compliance by February 2006. 2. Escalation of noise testing should take place immediately, to find actual scope of the problems facing the business. Plan to ensure compliance by 2006 of all vehicles to be developed and instituted. 3. A formal noise testing regime needs to be instituted for periodic testing of all vehicles. 4. Fault reporting procedures must be reviewed, including a central record of security faults and an audit trail of reporting. 5. Communication with all levels of staff must take place about their responsibility for health and safety of the workforce.

  10. Summary of Recommendations (con’t) 6. Discussion with technicians, mechanics and manufacturer should start immediately regarding technically feasible modification to vehicles including incorporation of crew informed solutions. 7. A collaborative approach must be taken to address issues of noise perception amongst staff. 8. There needs to be a review of working practices in conjunction with unions to ensure that time is allowed for vehicle issues. 9. Reducing the number of dedicated vehicles may help to ensure fault reporting. 10. More research is needed on crew perceptions of noise. 11. More research is needed on the barriers to effective vehicle maintenance.

  11. Potential Benefits (as sold to the fleet steering group) • There are financial savings to be made by addressing all the recommendations here. • A staff group which feels that it is cared about, stays longer with the business, committed teams work better together and recruitment and training costs fall. • Reduced sickness also has benefits for the business both in terms of cost and efficiency.

  12. The Situation Now (as at 16th Sep ’05) • Spending is being monitored closely (budgets capped etc.), there are no new vehicles being purchased but they are continuing to fit the aftermarket noise reduction kits. • Extra noise testing equipment has been purchased to enable the Health & Safety Team and Vehicle Engineers to test vehicles when visiting depots. • A formal testing regime has not been developed. • Fault reporting has changed and is currently being reviewed by the fleet steering group, also the fleet team structure is due to be rationalised. Current fault records cannot identify specific noise issues. • Communication with the teams is being delivered face to face by line managers, currently reviewing the content of health and safety messages.

  13. The Situation Now (as at 16th Sep ’05) • The vehicle design issues are ongoing with Johnsons (main supplier), our fleet engineers and regular crews. • Perception has not been tackled – working on a plan but do not expect it to be fixed overnight! • Duty times have been reviewed to ensure sufficient time is built in to carry out all the vehicle checks, but needs more work to ensure activities are supervised. • With the changing business fewer vehicles of this type required, slowly being replaced with MVV. • As 7 above. • Research carried out changed the procedure, it is now being reviewed by the fleet steering group.

More Related