Dangers of Bungee cords

[Guest JudgeMental]

drop it Dave.....I was annoyed. hence the follow up post this morning.

[Dave Newell]

Why should i drop it Eddie, you were down right rude and offensive. At the very least you owe all of us who don't necessarily agree with you an apology for referring to us as "moronic" and "ever so clever no it alls". By the way it should have been "Know" not "no".

 

D.

[Guest JudgeMental]

Pigs will fly......How about you getting of your high horse and minding your own business. along with your quarrelsome and pathetic mates

[michele]

Jesus guys ...Eddie you will get blood pressure real bad fall over the bungee cord and break ya neck.

Now say ya sorry for snapping at people who don't agree with ya :D and I am not moronic .

 

[Dave Newell]

JudgeMental - 2012-03-06 2:19 PM

 

Pigs will fly......How about you getting of your high horse and minding your own business. along with your quarrelsome and pathetic mates

 

I hadn't realised I was on a high horse, I just don't see bungee cords as that dangerous. Which quarrelsome and pathetic mates are you referring to Eddie? And as for minding my own business, well you started a thread on an open forum presumably for discussion. Discussions generally involve parties with at least two different views, you gave yours I and others gave ours. Some accept that bungee cords are dangerous others don't.

 

You are the only contributor to this thread that has made personally insulting remarks. There are several things I could say about you which from your general performance on this forum over the last few years would be perfectly accurate but I don't stoop to name calling as it demeans the discussion and ruins the thread, not to mention making me as bad as you.

 

As its blatantly obvious that you will brook no comment on anything that doesn't meet your views I shall simply refrain from entering into any further debate with you.

 

Enjoy the rest of your life.

 

D.

[Basil]

Not wishing to be involved with the childlike behaviour that is now occurring on this thread.

 

I can assure anyone reading that I am not unintelligent, ham fisted, ignorant or a 'Darwin' failure and had used Bungees for many many years prior to the one that could quite easily have taken the sight of my right eye. The fact is I used it in exactly the same way as I had done dozens if not hundreds of times before with no loss of concentration and yet with no warning it let go and unwrapped at such a speed that the accident occurred before I had realised what had happened. It was the one next to the one I was actually working on and had been secured for up to a minute yet still it let go and unfortunately my right eye took the hit.

Until it happened to me I probably would not have thought anything about it, in fact I didn't, but I have had my warning in a painful way, please if you don't want to take any notice that is fine, but I think Eddie was good and right to pass on his advice.

 

Bas

[Dave Newell]

I understand what you are saying Bas and hope you realise that it was never my intention to suggest you were less intelligent or anything else. I agree it was a good thread to start and thank Eddie for that. I just see no need for the personal insults just because someone has a different viewpoint. Glad your eye survived.

 

D.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2012-03-06 10:21 AM...................Millions of items have the potential for causing catastrophic injuries but don't require warning labels on them because in general those using these items realise the potential for serious/lethal consequences.  It is called 'common sense'. 

Common sense is only common to those who have learnt it. Not everyone has. What is not within the realm of common sense, IMO, is the force with which the bungee, even if not fully stretched, whips back if it lets go. It matters little whether the end is metal or plastic: if it hits you in the eye, it will be very likely to do serious damage. The trick, obviously, is to never tension a bungee when standing in line with it. That is not always obvious to a user, and nor is the propensity for one end to slip out of place while the other is being pulled into place. So, for the unaware, there is a risk of serious injury. I can see no harm arising if that were pointed out. Others can ignore it if they wish.

 

It is mentioned in the body of your post...'Accidents'...and accidents happen regardless of warning labels. 

Accidents indeed do happen. An accident is something unavoidable. That is why it is an accident. Damage or injury caused by negligence, ignorance, innocence, or stupidity are not, IMO, accidents, they are avoidable damage or injury. We can't do much for the negligent or the ignorant, they have choice. But the innocent or the stupid? If a simple warning shows them a risk they did not appreciate, and consequently they avoid the damage or injury, why is that a bad thing? Bear in mind that it is not always the perpetrator who suffers, so causing people to think before they act is, IMO, no bad thing. "It was an accident" is as often a rogue's charter as a statement of fact.

 

There is enough H&S overreaction and nannying going on and it is impossible to prevent 'accidents'.  There is a theory that all this H&S/nannying interference warning about the dangers of every little thing instead leaving people to think for themselves is actually making things worse because it stops people 'thinking' for themselves....Oh and less of the name calling please...

There is indeed such a theory, and a very disreputable one it is! :-) There is no nannying within the H&S Act, it merely requires people to be reasonable. They are required to assess risks before they embark on a course of action, and then to take the safest route. It does not require them to eliminate the risk at any cost, merely to manage it sensibly and economically. It requires them to exercise forethought. I have to say the requirement for forethought seems more often what people complain of, because thinking seems an uncommon activity. It makes their head hurt, they say. Good say I, because that probably prevents something else being hurt far more! Ultimately, it is just an exercise in "common sense" - for those with enough to use it! :-)

 

But I agree about the name calling! :-D

[RogerC]

Basil - 2012-03-06 6:33 PMNot wishing to be involved with the childlike behaviour that is now occurring on this thread.I can assure anyone reading that I am not unintelligent, ham fisted, ignorant or a 'Darwin' failure and had used Bungees for many many years prior to the one that could quite easily have taken the sight of my right eye. The fact is I used it in exactly the same way as I had done dozens if not hundreds of times before with no loss of concentration and yet with no warning it let go and unwrapped at such a speed that the accident occurred before I had realised what had happened. It was the one next to the one I was actually working on and had been secured for up to a minute yet still it let go and unfortunately my right eye took the hit.Until it happened to me I probably would not have thought anything about it, in fact I didn't, but I have had my warning in a painful way, please if you don't want to take any notice that is fine, but I think Eddie was good and right to pass on his advice.Bas

 

Bas...I might be one of those you are referring to however my 'Darwin' comment was aimed at those too stupid to realise bungees can recoil at speed. Show me someone who didn't play 'twang' or whatever it is/was called with elastic bands as a child.....bungees are nothing more than oversized 'lakky bands' so it's not rocket science that they recoil at high speed.

 

I take it your incident relates to a bungee failure?  which neither you or anyone can be expected to know that such a failure is about to happen..... (or was it not hooked on properly?). Assuming your incident was a 'failure' I stand by what I said which is basically that some people are so lacking in common sense that they are a danger to themselves.  My 'Darwin' comment was not aimed  at members who I presume are intelligent enough to use bungees but towards the element of the populace who seem unable to think for themselves and appear to have the need for warnings on everything and then run to 'Claims 'R' us' if their stupidity and lack of common sense causes them harm. 

 

To close....it is good to hear you were not badly injured by your 'accident'.

 

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2012-03-06 7:51 PM

RogerC - 2012-03-06 10:21 AM...................Millions of items have the potential for causing catastrophic injuries but don't require warning labels on them because in general those using these items realise the potential for serious/lethal consequences.  It is called 'common sense'. 

Common sense is only common to those who have learnt it. Not everyone has. What is not within the realm of common sense, IMO, is the force with which the bungee, even if not fully stretched, whips back if it lets go. It matters little whether the end is metal or plastic: if it hits you in the eye, it will be very likely to do serious damage. The trick, obviously, is to never tension a bungee when standing in line with it. That is not always obvious to a user, and nor is the propensity for one end to slip out of place while the other is being pulled into place. So, for the unaware, there is a risk of serious injury. I can see no harm arising if that were pointed out. Others can ignore it if they wish.

It is mentioned in the body of your post...'Accidents'...and accidents happen regardless of warning labels. 

Accidents indeed do happen. An accident is something unavoidable. That is why it is an accident. Damage or injury caused by negligence, ignorance, innocence, or stupidity are not, IMO, accidents, they are avoidable damage or injury. We can't do much for the negligent or the ignorant, they have choice. But the innocent or the stupid? If a simple warning shows them a risk they did not appreciate, and consequently they avoid the damage or injury, why is that a bad thing? Bear in mind that it is not always the perpetrator who suffers, so causing people to think before they act is, IMO, no bad thing. "It was an accident" is as often a rogue's charter as a statement of fact.

There is enough H&S overreaction and nannying going on and it is impossible to prevent 'accidents'.  There is a theory that all this H&S/nannying interference warning about the dangers of every little thing instead leaving people to think for themselves is actually making things worse because it stops people 'thinking' for themselves....Oh and less of the name calling please...

There is indeed such a theory, and a very disreputable one it is! :-) There is no nannying within the H&S Act, it merely requires people to be reasonable. They are required to assess risks before they embark on a course of action, and then to take the safest route. It does not require them to eliminate the risk at any cost, merely to manage it sensibly and economically. It requires them to exercise forethought. I have to say the requirement for forethought seems more often what people complain of, because thinking seems an uncommon activity. It makes their head hurt, they say. Good say I, because that probably prevents something else being hurt far more! Ultimately, it is just an exercise in "common sense" - for those with enough to use it! :-)But I agree about the name calling! :-D

 

Oh Brian...I normally/mostly agree with your offerings but this time I'm sorry but I feel you are merely supporting the mollycoddling element which is ruining this country with it's endless interference in everyday life.

 

You said:

What is not within the realm of common sense, IMO, is the force with which the bungee, even if not fully stretched, whips back if it lets go.

 

Oh please tell me you're not serious?

 

If a simple warning shows them a risk they did not appreciate, and consequently they avoid the damage or injury, why is that a bad thing?

But where does all this 'warning' people stop?  We could eventually end up with so many warnings that no one takes any notice because it takes just too much time or effort to read them all.  For instance a warning on a packet of peanuts...'WARNING THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NUTS'...and yes this is true.  Those needing this warning obviously failed the Darwin theory.

 

There is no nannying within the H&S Act, it merely requires people to be reasonable. They are required to assess risks before they embark on a course of action, and then to take the safest route.

 

Now that's funny....a builder friend of mine has H&S instructions telling him that he and his employees have to have three points of contact at all times whilst on a ladder.  How the hell does he work with hammer and nails or other tools/equipment at height if he adheres to that regulation?
The H&S answer is he should build staging for each and every occasion.  Try doing that for fixing a sticky window or nailing in a soffit or clearing a gutter and billing the customer £300-£500 for the privilege.  There is no way he could do that and remain in business.

 

I fully agree that the H&S act was necessary to begin with but it has become a 'catch all monster' because it is being expanded and implemented by those who are either power crazy or idiots who just can not grasp the implications of their 'rules'.

 

thinking seems an uncommon activity

 

It probably is becoming more so amongst the younger element and those who are old enough to know better but have been 'brainwashed' or fear for their jobs unless they support 'nanny'. The younger generation has been brought up with so many 'risk averse rules'....don't do that it's dangerous...don't play conkers....don't climb trees....don't play ball games in school playtime.....don't make snow/ice slides in school playgrounds....don't play hopscotch you might fall over...etc etc.  The sad thing is that these youngsters do and will continue to bring these 'risk averse attitudes' into the workplace because they know no different.  Then it's the case that if an 'accident' does occur someone 'must' be to blame so sue for damages....the world this country has gone mad with warnings and restrictions and in doing so is taking away the personal responsibility required to 'function' as an individual without finding someone or some organisation to blame if the slightest incident happens and in my opinion the country is a much worse place for being led so far down this path.

 

[colin]

RogerC - 2012-03-06 8:50 PM

 

Now that's funny....a builder friend of mine has H&S instructions telling him that he and his employees have to have three points of contact at all times whilst on a ladder.  How the hell does he work with hammer and nails or other tools/equipment at height if he adheres to that regulation

 

Regulation 8(e)

SCHEDULE 6

REQUIREMENTS FOR LADDERS

This schedule has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

1. Every employer shall ensure that a ladder is used for work at height only if a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and—

 

(a)the short duration of use; or .

(b)existing features on site which he cannot alter. .

2. Any surface upon which a ladder rests shall be stable, firm, of sufficient strength and of suitable composition safely to support the ladder so that its rungs or steps remain horizontal, and any loading intended to be placed on it.

 

3. A ladder shall be so positioned as to ensure its stability during use.

 

4. A suspended ladder shall be attached in a secure manner and so that, with the exception of a flexible ladder, it cannot be displaced and swinging is prevented.

 

5. A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by—

 

(a)securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends; .

(b)an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or .

©any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness. .

6. A ladder used for access shall be long enough to protrude sufficiently above the place of landing to which it provides access, unless other measures have been taken to ensure a firm handhold.

 

7. No interlocking or extension ladder shall be used unless its sections are prevented from moving relative to each other while in use.

 

8. A mobile ladder shall be prevented from moving before it is stepped on.

 

9. Where a ladder or run of ladders rises a vertical distance of 9 metres or more above its base, there shall, where reasonably practicable, be provided at suitable intervals sufficient safe landing areas or rest platforms.

 

10. Every ladder shall be used in such a way that—

 

(a)a secure handhold and secure support are always available to the user; and .

(b)the user can maintain a safe handhold when carrying a load unless, in the case of a step ladder, the maintenance of a handhold is not practicable when a load is carried, and a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of a stepladder is justified because of— .

(i)the low risk; and .

(ii)the short duration of use. .

.

[Brian Kirby]

Read it, distill out the message, and all it says is behave sensibly. And do you know why it says all that? It is because people consistently fall from ladders, or the ladder falls or slips with the person on it. And do you know why that is? It is because they are all too busy bleating on about Health and Safety Regulations to bother securing the ladder in the first place. So, do warnings prevent accidents? No, of course not, because far too many people are far too stupid to heed the warnings: until that is, they fall off the ladder, injure themselves, lose their employment, and then get paraded around building firms saying "please take the warnings seriously because I didn't, and look what happened to me"! Others, those with a grain more common sense, humour them, because it is too rude and inconsiderate to say: "yes, we knew that, you Muppet"! They say it when they've gone, though!

 

Oh yes, and the "builder" working off a ladder should get, and learn to use, some zip-up towers, because he will eventually find they are far cheaper - you can even hire them - than falling off a ladder and spending the rest of his life going around building firms lecturing on ladder safety from personal experience, with people calling him a Muppet behind his back! :-(

 

People are far less well informed about unfamiliar risks than you imagine them to be. I spent all my working life in construction, and I'll take no lectures from anyone on just how irresponsibly stupid apparently normal people can be. I've heard all the arguments, endlessly, and they are generally no more than the product of laziness. The record of accidents is still too high, and most happen to people who have been trained and instructed on how to avoid accidents but think they know it all, until.............................. Mum's, wives and friends have to pick up the pieces. Same applies to strutting trenches: nanny state etc, until the trench collapses and someone is buried alive. Same arguments: same idiots, often with the same tragic result. :-(

 

I use bungee cords, and shall continue doing so, - with care. The last bit is all it needs.

[crinklystarfish]

Eye for one am grateful for this thread but any H&S pupil would tell us not to lose sight of the scale of the problem. There is not a particularly irisk of a lash from a bungee cord but anyone who under estimates the risk is a bit of a cretina. I’d like to see a lid put on this thread before it turns any cornea.

The lesson seems to be that by way of freak accident, or plain stupidity, a metal hook propelled by a retracting elastic cord could cause an eye injury. 

Who would have though it.

[Dave Newell]

crinklystarfish - 2012-03-07 9:38 AM

 

Eye for one am grateful for this thread but any H&S pupil would tell us not to lose sight of the scale of the problem. There is not a particularly irisk of a lash from a bungee cord but anyone who under estimates the risk is a bit of a cretina. I’d like to see a lid put on this thread before it turns any cornea.

The lesson seems to be that by way of freak accident, or plain stupidity, a metal hook propelled by a retracting elastic cord could cause an eye injury. 

Who would have though it.

 

Pure brilliance Crinkly, love it :D .

 

D.

[747]

Like Brian, I have managed construction jobs and come across friction regarding ladders.

 

There is nothing in H & S legislation to prevent working off a ladder. The 3 points of contact can be both legs and a safety harness.

 

On nearly every site the rules state that a ladder is for access or inspection only and must be secured properly. These are always SITE RULES not H & S rules. These rules seem to be popular at local level only.

 

Back on topic......

 

To securely fix a load using cargo straps involves using quite a lot of tension for them to work safely. The anchor points on motorhomes and cars are not strong enough in my opinion and deformation will occur. Just watch a HGV driver tension his straps. Bungee cords are usually the most suitable method.

 

Don't be so sensitive to criticism Judge. At least it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

 

:D

[Mel B]

colin - 2012-03-06 9:05 PM

 

Regulation 8(e)

SCHEDULE 6

REQUIREMENTS FOR LADDERS

This schedule has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

1. Every employer shall ensure that a ladder is used for work at height only if a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and—

 

(a)the short duration of use; or .

(b)existing features on site which he cannot alter. .

2. Any surface upon which a ladder rests shall be stable, firm, of sufficient strength and of suitable composition safely to support the ladder so that its rungs or steps remain horizontal, and any loading intended to be placed on it.

 

3. A ladder shall be so positioned as to ensure its stability during use.

 

4. A suspended ladder shall be attached in a secure manner and so that, with the exception of a flexible ladder, it cannot be displaced and swinging is prevented.

 

5. A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by—

 

(a)securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends; .

(b)an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or .

©any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness. .

6. A ladder used for access shall be long enough to protrude sufficiently above the place of landing to which it provides access, unless other measures have been taken to ensure a firm handhold.

 

7. No interlocking or extension ladder shall be used unless its sections are prevented from moving relative to each other while in use.

 

8. A mobile ladder shall be prevented from moving before it is stepped on.

 

9. Where a ladder or run of ladders rises a vertical distance of 9 metres or more above its base, there shall, where reasonably practicable, be provided at suitable intervals sufficient safe landing areas or rest platforms.

 

10. Every ladder shall be used in such a way that—

 

(a)a secure handhold and secure support are always available to the user; and .

(b)the user can maintain a safe handhold when carrying a load unless, in the case of a step ladder, the maintenance of a handhold is not practicable when a load is carried, and a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of a stepladder is justified because of— .

(i)the low risk; and .

(ii)the short duration of use. .

.

 

Does this meet requirements??? :D

[colin]

It may be a perspective problem with photo, but tyhat rope going across bottom of photo looks like a trip hazard.

[Mel B]

colin - 2012-03-07 10:24 PM

 

It may be a perspective problem with photo, but tyhat rope going across bottom of photo looks like a trip hazard.

 

No, that's my tightrope - I use it to walk from one tree top to the other to save having to climb down to 'earth'.

[colin]

Ah, well thats where there's a H&S problem, has the tightness of the rope been checked by a qualified inspector as it looks way to slack to me.

[Brian Kirby]

Question of terminology, Colin. It is not a defective tightrope, but a fully compliant slack wire. Different skills, different operatives! Mind, the unskilled can fall off either! :-D

[derek pringle]

Hi All,

I believe the reason accidents are so common on every day things like ladders , bungees etc,despite any H&S rules or guidelines where in place, are due to' familiarity breeding contempt'. Of course everybody knows these things can be dangerous but the accident always happens to the other person--I am too knowledgable for it to be me syndrome--until of course it happens. How many times do we do things on 'auto pilot',not breaking the process down carefully and safely as a risk assessor would. I do not remember too many accidents when rope lashings were used before bungees [not that there werent any].

If nothing else I must be honest and say this thread will cross my mind the next time I am securing the bikes to the van and that can not be a bad thing---can it.

cheers

derek

[donna miller]

That photo is absolutely terrible Mel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody has turn-ups in their jeans nowadays.

[josie gibblebucket]

Should have gone to specsavers too by the look of the goggles :D :D

[Brian Kirby]

donna miller - 2012-03-08 1:09 PM

 

That photo is absolutely terrible Mel.

 

Nobody has turn-ups in their jeans nowadays.

:-D :-D

 

I'm afraid to ask this, but is the person in the photograph someone Mel used to know?

[Guest pelmetman]

Are they as dangerous as Bunga Bunga parties :-S