21
CECE
Call for greater focus
on health and safety
Responding to the issue as
a priority, the Commission is
issuing a warning related to a
formal objection against the
harmonised standard dealing
with visibility of construction
machines,
the
EN
474-
1:2006+A4:2013.
Such forms of objection are
a powerful instrument with
substantial consequences for
the designers and suppliers of
machinery.
If the formal objection comes
into force, manufacturers of
machines will no longer be
sure that the machines they
are designing according to the
respective and state-of-the-
art standards comply with the
requirements of the Machinery
Directive (2006/42/EC).
Consequently, the companies
themselves would be the ones
who decide at which stage their
machines would be safe.
In the case of damage or
accidents, this could lead to huge
financial consequences.
KEY ELEMENT
To make it crystal clear, one
of the key elements of joined
standardisation work done by
experts is to care for workers’ and
operators’ safety and to prevent
accidents.
As a basic principle, all
stakeholder groups affected by
a standard are asked to take an
active part in the preparation of
health and safety monitoring.
The
European
standard
EN 474-1 to which the EU
Commission is now referring,
complies with the essential
health and safety requirements
of the Machinery Directive.
Regulation EN 474:2010 states
that for the operator’s view,
earthmoving machines shall be
designed in accordance with ISO
5006:2006. This means that the
operator must have sufficient
visibility from the operator’s
station in relation to the travel
and work areas of the machine
that are necessary for the
intended use of the machine.
The standard demands, for
example, a camera-monitor
system where direct vision does
not comply with the visibility
requirements for constructional
reasons such as a counterweight,
but also allows other technical
solutions to create visibility, by
means of mirrors, for example.
Currently the ISO 5006 is under
revision.
Ongoing amendments include
many new aspects such as the
inclusion of larger machines and
indirect detection systems such
as ultra-sound, radar, active/
passive
infrared
detectors,
practical experience gained and
the intensification of ergonomic
principles.
It also examines the driver’s
ability to absorb and process
information, the adaption of the
vertical test object dimension,
the number of visual aids and
options for the use of new visual
aid systems such as top-view and
bird-view or person recognition
systems.
The ISO working group has
assured that the standard would
be amended in the shortest
possible timeframe that ISO
permits.
However, accidents occur. The
fact that people have lost their
lives is tragic.
It is of utmost importance
to analyse the accidents with
expertise, to identify the causes
and to then draw the necessary
conclusions.
After that, procedures have
to be specified on the basis of
the findings, and have to be
implemented according to the
causes and the most effective
measures.
This requires technological as
CECE Secretariat
Diamant Building –
Bd A Reyers 80
B – 1030 Brussels
Tel:+32-2-706 82 26
Fax: +32-2-706 82 10
AEB
AGORIA
ANMOPYC
APCEMP
CEA
CISMA
COMAMOTER
FMIB-CWM
IMDER
SACE
SVSS
Teknologiateollisuus
UCOMESA
Unacea
VDMA
Fears about the lack of clarity over safety legislation, and its
implementation in the construction industry, have led to two petitions
for action on this important issue
T
he EU Commission has
reacted to two petitions
revealing that a lack of
visibility around a wide range
of construction equipment is
leading to environments with
concerning levels of risk and
danger to employees – even
causing deaths on sites.
well as responsible operational
procedures in a balanced way.
In order to be able to react
to the claims brought forward
by the petitioner, precise
information and facts concerning
the listed accidents can be seen
as crucial.
There is no proof in the
accidents record that incidents
occurred as a result of a lack of
“design.”
REPEATEDLY ASKED
Looking at the history of both
petitions that have led to this
proposal for decision, the
standardisation bodies have
repeatedly asked for information
concerning the accidents and
their circumstances.
Among the central matters
to be addressed are questions
such as “do all machines
involved in the listed accidents
fall under the scope of EN 474-
1:2006+A4:2013?”, “if yes, did
they comply with the current
requirements for visibility of the
standard?”, “was the cause of
the accident always insufficient
visibility for the driver during the
operation of the machine” and
“have there been shortages in the
occupational safety provisions
on the construction site?”.
Since these questions have
never been answered and since
there is no detailed analysis of
causes and circumstances of
accidents included, it seems that
the petitions are based mainly on
assertions.
With an informal warning,
the democratic process of
preparation of standards can
be circumvented in a very easy
manner.
Thus, not only the work of
numerous experts but also the
efforts of a whole sector to
ensure workers and operators
safety will be discredited in one
sweep.
ce
CONSTRUCTION EUROPE
SEPTEMBER 2014
