Also the point of the manager blaring over the tannoy speakers instead of getting off his fat backside.
Agreed there Ian.
What the manager shopuld of done is either come out and discuss the matter at the pump or because there clearly was no danger (HSE evidence already provided), he could of explained the point inside the shop.
Furthermore if an establishment has specific rules then should they not only display it at the point of entry but also in writing large enough to be clearly visable instead of 5mm high print that is only readable by the attendee of the fuel pump and placed so high that passengers in a car can not see the signage let alone read it.
BTW you forgot to answer my key question, or are you still pondering on the subject.
TTFN Steve L.
What the manager shopuld of done is either come out and discuss the matter at the pump or because there clearly was no danger (HSE evidence already provided), he could of explained the point inside the shop.
Furthermore if an establishment has specific rules then should they not only display it at the point of entry but also in writing large enough to be clearly visable instead of 5mm high print that is only readable by the attendee of the fuel pump and placed so high that passengers in a car can not see the signage let alone read it.
BTW you forgot to answer my key question, or are you still pondering on the subject.
TTFN Steve L.
Parksy
Moderator
There is a good chance that whatever guidelines the Health & Safety Executive have issued regarding the appropriate use of mobile phones on fuel filling station forecourts the employee was following company policy as laid down by his employers, in this case Morrison's supermarket.
Similarly the employee might not be allowed to leave their console to quietly ask that phones etc are turned off in line with his employers policies which is why most supermarket fuel outlets employ tannoy systems.
Pointing out the 'myth of mobiles causing explosions' wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the supermarket employee because as a very small cog in a very large machine nothing that Steve L could say would make the slightest difference to the situation as far as he would be concerned. Rules is rules as they say and there is no way that the supermarket employee would risk his job in any way to cater for individuals perceptions or feelings.
The use of tannoy systems on supermarket forecourts to contact customers is universal and signs restricting the use of mobile phones amongst other things are normal whether we agree with the rules or not.
Supermarket forecourts see literally hundreds of customers every day so the rules governing the use of the fuel facility on offer will always be of the 'one size fits all' variety, it's called covering your a$$ for all eventualities.
Those upset or offended by the rules imposed by the owners of the forecourt or by the use of tannoy systems should consider paying the extra premium for the more personalised service offered by small independent fuel retailers if any still exist. The tannoy at out local supermarket forecourt blares away quite often with some snotty kid enforcing the 'rules' at the other end but at
Similarly the employee might not be allowed to leave their console to quietly ask that phones etc are turned off in line with his employers policies which is why most supermarket fuel outlets employ tannoy systems.
Pointing out the 'myth of mobiles causing explosions' wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the supermarket employee because as a very small cog in a very large machine nothing that Steve L could say would make the slightest difference to the situation as far as he would be concerned. Rules is rules as they say and there is no way that the supermarket employee would risk his job in any way to cater for individuals perceptions or feelings.
The use of tannoy systems on supermarket forecourts to contact customers is universal and signs restricting the use of mobile phones amongst other things are normal whether we agree with the rules or not.
Supermarket forecourts see literally hundreds of customers every day so the rules governing the use of the fuel facility on offer will always be of the 'one size fits all' variety, it's called covering your a$$ for all eventualities.
Those upset or offended by the rules imposed by the owners of the forecourt or by the use of tannoy systems should consider paying the extra premium for the more personalised service offered by small independent fuel retailers if any still exist. The tannoy at out local supermarket forecourt blares away quite often with some snotty kid enforcing the 'rules' at the other end but at
Yea I do undertsand your point.
I might be a small cog in the wheel of Health & Safety in the supermarket's eyes. But that cog has seen the H&S guide lines and read them properly, which is far more than the HES (health, environment & safety) manager has done before he/she has developed the "company policy".
Because they are so far up their own A*** in trying to look good, they have forgotten the bigger picture. That has not been over looked in the H&S guidelines.
When I had my own engineering business we predominately employed young school leavers not only for the financial benefit, but also to offer a training package in engineering production. This was supported by Hereford Group Training Association and the CEO there also had trained me as an apprentice. We had twenty years of a very good training relationship with HGTA and also because we were taking youngsters into industry we also had a very good working relationship with HSE. They regarded our company as a flagship in Leominster and often asked to show other employers around our workshop.
So hopefully you guys can see that I am looking at what could be called the wider view of H&S.
BTW You haven't answered the question on Accident or near miss either Parksy. It is a genuine question no catches.
Atb Steve L.
I might be a small cog in the wheel of Health & Safety in the supermarket's eyes. But that cog has seen the H&S guide lines and read them properly, which is far more than the HES (health, environment & safety) manager has done before he/she has developed the "company policy".
Because they are so far up their own A*** in trying to look good, they have forgotten the bigger picture. That has not been over looked in the H&S guidelines.
When I had my own engineering business we predominately employed young school leavers not only for the financial benefit, but also to offer a training package in engineering production. This was supported by Hereford Group Training Association and the CEO there also had trained me as an apprentice. We had twenty years of a very good training relationship with HGTA and also because we were taking youngsters into industry we also had a very good working relationship with HSE. They regarded our company as a flagship in Leominster and often asked to show other employers around our workshop.
So hopefully you guys can see that I am looking at what could be called the wider view of H&S.
BTW You haven't answered the question on Accident or near miss either Parksy. It is a genuine question no catches.
Atb Steve L.
Parksy
Moderator
I hadn't realised that we were doing a quiz Steve :0)
I'm by no means an expert on these matters, I just obey the signs and procedures on fuel forecourts that are in operation at the time including the sometimes garbled tannoy 'instructions'.
I would however venture to suggest that in the truest sense of the word there is no such thing as an 'accident', only incidents which could be prevented in most cases.
I couldn't possibly comment about the 'near miss' Steve because as a dedicated and determined non mobile phone user I've never had a near miss while I've been using one.
I'm by no means an expert on these matters, I just obey the signs and procedures on fuel forecourts that are in operation at the time including the sometimes garbled tannoy 'instructions'.
I would however venture to suggest that in the truest sense of the word there is no such thing as an 'accident', only incidents which could be prevented in most cases.
I couldn't possibly comment about the 'near miss' Steve because as a dedicated and determined non mobile phone user I've never had a near miss while I've been using one.
Steve! I cannot help feeling that you are trying to make a mountain out of molehill here.
You feel that you have been abused by the supermarket because they asked your passenger to stop using a mobile phone.
I'm sorry but I don't see it as the crime you are making it out to be. No regulation has been broken, and by your own admission the HSE's input on the matter are only guidelines and not compulsory.
I think it is only fair to point out that the HSE does not have the monopoly on wider pictures, Perhaps the supermarket has a sustainable reason for their policy.
I see no point in pursuing this thread any further here, as forum members we cannot dictate the policies or otherwise that Morrisons have, Why not take it up with them directly.
You feel that you have been abused by the supermarket because they asked your passenger to stop using a mobile phone.
I'm sorry but I don't see it as the crime you are making it out to be. No regulation has been broken, and by your own admission the HSE's input on the matter are only guidelines and not compulsory.
I think it is only fair to point out that the HSE does not have the monopoly on wider pictures, Perhaps the supermarket has a sustainable reason for their policy.
I see no point in pursuing this thread any further here, as forum members we cannot dictate the policies or otherwise that Morrisons have, Why not take it up with them directly.
Parksy
Moderator
In fairness to Steve in Leo his points don't break any forum rules and whatever we may think his opening post has provided the focus for some discussion amongst members.
We may agree or disagree with Steve's position and we are at liberty to express our opinions on forums such as these which would soon become sterile without discussion.
We may agree or disagree with Steve's position and we are at liberty to express our opinions on forums such as these which would soon become sterile without discussion.
Well put Parksy.
I'm not agreaved or peaved about being told of any regulation as long as it is a sesable and practical one to implement.
Open discussion is what this forum is about which is why I decided to share this article on the forum
It's a shame that when a topic actually has substance and contribution in a non formal by reasonably polite fashion that someone has to try to detract from what can be a rather interesting conversation.
Anyway before John has his way, here's the answer to my quiz of what is more important "an accident or a near miss".
Well it isn't the accident especially if people are killed as a result, of someone not acting when the near miss occurred. You see if a near miss is ivestigated and supported by all parties involved, a sensible resolution is found and no one gets hurt as a result. Plus there's one less accident to have to report to the HSE under RIDOR regulations concerning reporting of accidents/incidents to the HSE.
In this particular case the HSE have done their home work, and found that an un-necessary blanket ban on mobile phone usage in and around petrol fore courts lead to other instances where for example:- Employee's snook out the back to make mobile calls, thus leaving the shop un-supervised, tus opening the window of opportunity for incidents to happen. Then the HSE looked at the possable out come of mis-managed customer contact (verbal of coarse) which if such an altrecation takes place could easily result in the forcourt attendant being either verbally or even physically abused or both.
So as a result of utilising the what if syndrome and near miss investigation techniques, the HSE arrived at their view that in the interest of practicality and reducing the opportunity for confrontation to enduce ultracation, they decided there was "no need to prevent use of mibile phones in the shop area, or inside the confines of a vehicle. They did deem it appropriate to prohibit the use of phones at the pump by the person carrying out refuelling processes or maintaining the pump mechanisums.
As and when the supermarket chain involved in this case, condesend's to reply, I will up date all on what they have to say.
As a foot note, yesterday I was at the Range in kiddy and found a pallet truck with it's platform raised, parked across the end of a shelf row with the forks pointing into the isle side on. I found a member of staff and pointed out the nera miss incident that could so easily of been an accident had a customer fell over the poorly parked truck. Now can you guy's see the importance of near miss's?
Atb Steve L.
I'm not agreaved or peaved about being told of any regulation as long as it is a sesable and practical one to implement.
Open discussion is what this forum is about which is why I decided to share this article on the forum
It's a shame that when a topic actually has substance and contribution in a non formal by reasonably polite fashion that someone has to try to detract from what can be a rather interesting conversation.
Anyway before John has his way, here's the answer to my quiz of what is more important "an accident or a near miss".
Well it isn't the accident especially if people are killed as a result, of someone not acting when the near miss occurred. You see if a near miss is ivestigated and supported by all parties involved, a sensible resolution is found and no one gets hurt as a result. Plus there's one less accident to have to report to the HSE under RIDOR regulations concerning reporting of accidents/incidents to the HSE.
In this particular case the HSE have done their home work, and found that an un-necessary blanket ban on mobile phone usage in and around petrol fore courts lead to other instances where for example:- Employee's snook out the back to make mobile calls, thus leaving the shop un-supervised, tus opening the window of opportunity for incidents to happen. Then the HSE looked at the possable out come of mis-managed customer contact (verbal of coarse) which if such an altrecation takes place could easily result in the forcourt attendant being either verbally or even physically abused or both.
So as a result of utilising the what if syndrome and near miss investigation techniques, the HSE arrived at their view that in the interest of practicality and reducing the opportunity for confrontation to enduce ultracation, they decided there was "no need to prevent use of mibile phones in the shop area, or inside the confines of a vehicle. They did deem it appropriate to prohibit the use of phones at the pump by the person carrying out refuelling processes or maintaining the pump mechanisums.
As and when the supermarket chain involved in this case, condesend's to reply, I will up date all on what they have to say.
As a foot note, yesterday I was at the Range in kiddy and found a pallet truck with it's platform raised, parked across the end of a shelf row with the forks pointing into the isle side on. I found a member of staff and pointed out the nera miss incident that could so easily of been an accident had a customer fell over the poorly parked truck. Now can you guy's see the importance of near miss's?
Atb Steve L.
No I haven't,
Only that I cant see any further point arguing over something that I(or we) cant affect.
That's what I thought Ray.
I've already suggested before thta John should do his home work before commenting and yet again the home work hasn't been done, because he would of realised that from the very first opening topic of the thread, I have already pointed out that I have sent a letter to the supermarket HQ detailing the incident and sending the relevant copies of the HSE documnet.
Any subject regarding a day to day comodity and how to implement best practice does deserve an open debate and this forum is all about people freely expressing oppinion.
I have posted in the past topics on fuel prices and invited people to express themselves and make a stand.
I'm not afraid to rattle my sabre at the conglomerates who think we will just give a sigh an accept price hikes or petty rules that have no real affect to a situation other than to insight agitation.
No wonder adverts on TV portraying us brits as no knowing how to haggle.
Perhaps if people took a leaf out of Dominc Littlewood's book and stood up for our rights then I believe we would all be suprised at just what they can do.
I never take the price quoted by tyre depots as being their best and will ring 3 other depots in the town before going back to the first one and giving them the info. That is usually thta a copetetor is upto 20% cheaper, but I tell them 25% and then I will get that price matched or undercut by another 5%. Thus saving 30% on a tyre or more if i then say how much for 2.
I've taken on the DWP by appealing my ESA claim myself and got 47 weeks of back pay of about
I've already suggested before thta John should do his home work before commenting and yet again the home work hasn't been done, because he would of realised that from the very first opening topic of the thread, I have already pointed out that I have sent a letter to the supermarket HQ detailing the incident and sending the relevant copies of the HSE documnet.
Any subject regarding a day to day comodity and how to implement best practice does deserve an open debate and this forum is all about people freely expressing oppinion.
I have posted in the past topics on fuel prices and invited people to express themselves and make a stand.
I'm not afraid to rattle my sabre at the conglomerates who think we will just give a sigh an accept price hikes or petty rules that have no real affect to a situation other than to insight agitation.
No wonder adverts on TV portraying us brits as no knowing how to haggle.
Perhaps if people took a leaf out of Dominc Littlewood's book and stood up for our rights then I believe we would all be suprised at just what they can do.
I never take the price quoted by tyre depots as being their best and will ring 3 other depots in the town before going back to the first one and giving them the info. That is usually thta a copetetor is upto 20% cheaper, but I tell them 25% and then I will get that price matched or undercut by another 5%. Thus saving 30% on a tyre or more if i then say how much for 2.
I've taken on the DWP by appealing my ESA claim myself and got 47 weeks of back pay of about
Parksy
Moderator
Nobody is trying to prevent freedom of speech or open discussion on this forum.
John L has his opinion which is as valid as anyone else's and I had intervened previously to make the point that discussion is the life blood of any forum.
I will take this opportunity to ask that members refrain from using this forum to post negative comments or personal attacks on each other.
I'm off again to enjoy the weekend sunshine in the caravan in a few minutes so have a good weekend and play nicely until I'm back on Sunday night :0)
John L has his opinion which is as valid as anyone else's and I had intervened previously to make the point that discussion is the life blood of any forum.
I will take this opportunity to ask that members refrain from using this forum to post negative comments or personal attacks on each other.
I'm off again to enjoy the weekend sunshine in the caravan in a few minutes so have a good weekend and play nicely until I'm back on Sunday night :0)
I must have missed something here. Just because the company imposes a condition when selling fuel it doesn't follow that it is because the "elf & safety" lot have decreed it. If the company so desired it could refuse to serve you for not wearing wellies. Abide by their conditions or go elsewhere. In my local village store they won't serve you if you're on your mobile because they want your full attention, not because of any safety reason.
I agree there Chrissy.
That is why my phone stays in the car. The reason that people who are actually filling their cars with petrol are banned from using a mobile is mainly because distracted petrol pump users may over fill their tanks or as seen on american TV actually drive off with the nozzel still in the car.
So don't you think persistant distraction by using a tanoy for an offence that clearly in the eyes of HSE is not necessary.
When the supermarket chain concerned has replied to my letter I'll pass on the reply.
Atb Steve L.
That is why my phone stays in the car. The reason that people who are actually filling their cars with petrol are banned from using a mobile is mainly because distracted petrol pump users may over fill their tanks or as seen on american TV actually drive off with the nozzel still in the car.
So don't you think persistant distraction by using a tanoy for an offence that clearly in the eyes of HSE is not necessary.
When the supermarket chain concerned has replied to my letter I'll pass on the reply.
Atb Steve L.
Steve , has this become a bit of a vendetta ? Is it time to stand back , take stock and let it "wash over you". I understand that some embarrasment was felt due to the tannoy thing but sometimes these things are best left as they can start to prey on our minds a little.
I don't think there is any form of vendetta ensuing here Phil.
I am simply answering threads as appropriate.
I am quite happy what ever the outcome of the discussion with the supermarket.
The simple point I'm trying to highlight is, that if people go over the top with H&S they can be creating more danger rather than less. In fact it was your good self who pointed out a very genuine reason for petrol pump user's not to be distracted.
I thought the general concept of a forum was to enable free expression of speach and to debate individual theories in a friendly and open manner.
I think it is very good if one get's both posative and negative press so to speak, as that shows that we are not all like sheep and follow thw leader.
TTFN
Steve L.
I am simply answering threads as appropriate.
I am quite happy what ever the outcome of the discussion with the supermarket.
The simple point I'm trying to highlight is, that if people go over the top with H&S they can be creating more danger rather than less. In fact it was your good self who pointed out a very genuine reason for petrol pump user's not to be distracted.
I thought the general concept of a forum was to enable free expression of speach and to debate individual theories in a friendly and open manner.
I think it is very good if one get's both posative and negative press so to speak, as that shows that we are not all like sheep and follow thw leader.
TTFN
Steve L.
Why are the rescue services allowed to make calls from the forecourt trying to source spares for the broken down car at the pump? Seen that one many times.
Numerous people seem to wear those funny earpieces, bluetooth or whatever, chatting away whilst filling up. Maybe Morrisons have yet to issue technology updates to their managers?
When did anyone last hear of a petrol station catching fire at the pumps?? None I am aware of.
Steve,
Personally my gripe would be the way the bloke spoke to you. Otherwise he was doing his job as instructed. He probably only earns small money too, jobsworth etc.
Cheers
Dustydog
Numerous people seem to wear those funny earpieces, bluetooth or whatever, chatting away whilst filling up. Maybe Morrisons have yet to issue technology updates to their managers?
When did anyone last hear of a petrol station catching fire at the pumps?? None I am aware of.
Steve,
Personally my gripe would be the way the bloke spoke to you. Otherwise he was doing his job as instructed. He probably only earns small money too, jobsworth etc.
Cheers
Dustydog
In reply to the question regarding "accident" or a near miss, I can only relate to being a motorway cop for 30 years and the times I heard this as a reply " I dont know what happened I havnt had an accident in 20 years of driving" the reply that always came to mind but never given was "But how many have you caused".
There is no such thing as an accident someone or something always causes it.
"Near miss" your lucky you got away with it.
There is no such thing as an accident someone or something always causes it.
"Near miss" your lucky you got away with it.
I agree with you Trevor but when you relate to industrial situations where a process is repeated time and time again, you can seriously reduce accident frequencey if you tackle near misses.
For example. A car skids on an oil patch on the forecourt and just misses hitting the pump. (The near miss)
What do you do?
1/ Nothing because we got away with it that time.
2/ Introduce a speed limit on the fore court.
3/ Insist all vehicles have 5mm of tyre tread depth, and police it.
4/ Increase routine cleaning of the fore court.
5/ Find out how the spillage got there in the first place & prevent re-occurance.
If you accept point 1 that is being ignorant to Health & safety.
Points 2,3&4 are just temporary containments which may or may not be practical to implement, but you are starting to think about safety in the workplace.
If you adopt point 5 and investigate the who,where, what, why and when aproach to investigating you acn reach a resolution that is not only effective but efficient.
Then of coarse being an ex copper Trev I'm teaching you to suck eggs.
But that's the way I've been trained in Health & Safety in the workplace.
By getting to the route cause by educating people about distractfull behavior, or pump users about paying attention to the task in hand. Could result in there being no spillage for the car to skid on and nearly hit the petrol pump.
Yes I agree with you that generally accedents are caused by people, either being negligent in their maintainence of apparatus (be it car, fuel pump etc)or negligent in their care and duty to others.
Atb Steve L.
For example. A car skids on an oil patch on the forecourt and just misses hitting the pump. (The near miss)
What do you do?
1/ Nothing because we got away with it that time.
2/ Introduce a speed limit on the fore court.
3/ Insist all vehicles have 5mm of tyre tread depth, and police it.
4/ Increase routine cleaning of the fore court.
5/ Find out how the spillage got there in the first place & prevent re-occurance.
If you accept point 1 that is being ignorant to Health & safety.
Points 2,3&4 are just temporary containments which may or may not be practical to implement, but you are starting to think about safety in the workplace.
If you adopt point 5 and investigate the who,where, what, why and when aproach to investigating you acn reach a resolution that is not only effective but efficient.
Then of coarse being an ex copper Trev I'm teaching you to suck eggs.
But that's the way I've been trained in Health & Safety in the workplace.
By getting to the route cause by educating people about distractfull behavior, or pump users about paying attention to the task in hand. Could result in there being no spillage for the car to skid on and nearly hit the petrol pump.
Yes I agree with you that generally accedents are caused by people, either being negligent in their maintainence of apparatus (be it car, fuel pump etc)or negligent in their care and duty to others.
Atb Steve L.
since this is now a H & S issue perhaps the petrol station owners have carried out a risk assessment on the site and decided that mobile phones should not be used inside cars as well as outside.
Risk assessments are a mandatory part of the h & s environment we now live in ...party due to the over zealous H & S inspectors ensuring that they will have a long and fruit full career and a good pension to boot.
As an example , i recently noted our H & S consultant taking photgraphs of our electrical sockets at work. When i asked him why he explained that the risk assessment identified the possibility of the socket being overloaded. I asked him was that mechanically or electrically, he firstly told me it was mechanically, and i asked him what the max mechanical load on a socket was... he did not know, he then decided that it was electrical,and i asked " the only way to check if the socket is overloaded is to measure the current draw through the socket and if it exceeds the rating of the socket then its overloaded... taking a photograph will not provide the info - surely" .
This guy was highly qualified had a good reputation but talking absolute rollocks.
Risk assessments are a mandatory part of the h & s environment we now live in ...party due to the over zealous H & S inspectors ensuring that they will have a long and fruit full career and a good pension to boot.
As an example , i recently noted our H & S consultant taking photgraphs of our electrical sockets at work. When i asked him why he explained that the risk assessment identified the possibility of the socket being overloaded. I asked him was that mechanically or electrically, he firstly told me it was mechanically, and i asked him what the max mechanical load on a socket was... he did not know, he then decided that it was electrical,and i asked " the only way to check if the socket is overloaded is to measure the current draw through the socket and if it exceeds the rating of the socket then its overloaded... taking a photograph will not provide the info - surely" .
This guy was highly qualified had a good reputation but talking absolute rollocks.
i cannot belive you are still going on about getting shouted at for useing a mobile phone on the forcourt of a garage ( sitting in the car is classed as being on the forcourt)
Your point 5 was probably made at most, if not all garages after someone somewhere stated there could be a risk of fire or explosion if a mobile phone is used on a forcourt. So stopping yet another reason for insurance companys paying out, garages decided to put signs asking people not to use mobile phones.
in your words
"a resolution that is not only effective but efficient was made"
Your point 5 was probably made at most, if not all garages after someone somewhere stated there could be a risk of fire or explosion if a mobile phone is used on a forcourt. So stopping yet another reason for insurance companys paying out, garages decided to put signs asking people not to use mobile phones.
in your words
"a resolution that is not only effective but efficient was made"
Facebook
Twitter