Whilst true, the employer must ensure the safety of their employees. In this case the BBC should have insisted that he wear the appropriate safety gear. If they did and he ignored it their would have been no payout. We had a case here about 15 years ago where a guy died after swallowing deisel when he was siphoning it to take home, basically stealing from his employer. The employer had to pay workers compensation to his family as the "accident" happened at work and the courts felt that employer should have taken precautions to prevent this from happening. No way to lock the cap as the sire OH&S requirements required all cars on site to be unlocked with the keys left in the ignition in case of an emergency. What was the employer meant to do? Stitch the ****ers mouth shut?
I have a feeling health and safety works in in any position, anyone would’ve known it was a danger and could’ve easily said no. The lad also wouldnt have lost 9 million or however much and he also wouldn’t have a mis-shaped face and he definitely wouldn’t have went through the pain and its after effects if he had just an ounce of brains and said I’m not doing it without a helmet. As I said mate we got to look after our own self
I haven’t said that but first and foremost we are responsible for our own safety, if he has asked for a helmet and they’ve said no then he shouldn’t have went ahead with it. If he has refused to wear one after they’ve told him to then it’s his own fault, I suppose we’ll never know what has been said or done health and safety wise as it’s all finished with now.
For 2 years of missed earnings which he probably would’ve been paid that amount if he wore a helmet because he wouldn’t have got the injuries he did to keep him off work. I’m just going off what I would’ve done mate if I thought there was a danger to me, in this case I would’ve worn a helmet.
Unfortunately the opposite also applies. If he didn't think there was a danger to him then he may not have thought he needed a helmet. No risk assessment by the employer then the employer is usually considered to be at fault
I’m not saying the bbc aren’t blameless as obviously as you pointed out they’ve paid him a large amount of money and I personally think it should be looked into what safety measures they did do but I would rather have my face intact and without all the pain and operations he’s had over the years if only he had the sense to say to himself I need to be wearing a helmet here as this is just as dangerous as riding a hi speed bike which Im sure if asked to do so he would wear a helmet.
As I’ve said if he thought driving at them speeds in an open top 3 wheeler without a helmet then he’s a daft twat. It’s why there is laws saying you must wear a helmet on a motorbike.
Are you saying it was someone else’s fault he wasn’t wearing a helmet. Was he brain dead before he set off? I 100% agree with comfy.
Don't get me wrong, i fully agree with you on that aspect. Sadly in todays society stupidity appears to be an excuse and nore and more employers are basically being tasked with planning to allow for stupidity
I remember in the 80s when there was nothing like health and safety and with working in the ship yards we used our own H&S, it was called common sense and you’re right what you are saying about todays society. Yes employers have a responsibility but I wouldn’t trust none of them with my H&S that ones down to me, probably old school me
All those saying he should’ve worn a helmet, I’ve known paramedics who have seen accidents where the helmet has killed the person. Restricts the neck movement and breaks the neck. I drove an Atom without a helmet. It was exhilarating. So much fun. Never even thought about a crash helmet. If his face has scraped across the ground as they say, chances are a helmet snaps his neck. Only saying what I know from working as a 111 and 999 call handler. Helmets save more than they cost, but when the weight of a motorbike is pushing on you with a helmet on, often not wearing one would ave your life according to paramedics
I'm not. What I'm saying is that it's clearly a dangerous thing to do especially for someone who's not a professional driver. If I go onto a building site I'd expect all safety aspects to be covered but that doesn't mean I can stroll on without safety boots and a hard hat, nor would I want to. I've no knowledge of this incident and wouldn't watch the show if you've paid me so I've no idea who's fault the crash was tbh. Im sure they did but there's a risk in every car journey tbh, it's a question of probability. Eliminating the risk would mean not getting into the car in the first place, safety guaranteed. Football players can have their career ended on the pitch in any game ... ... that's the risk they take.
The answer is there mate, helmers save more than they cost. You don’t know which accident you are going to have.
All good points from the emergency services end but at the same time you don’t know which crash is gonna break your neck, what people are saying and you yourself is helmets do save lives and stop serious injuries.
