Safety?

Well, the first one is easy for me. If I understand the question, my logic is that it is safer and easier to back into a parking space where there is nothing in that space and nothing is likely to enter that space as I am backing in.

Backing out of a space is more dangerous because you are backing into an active lane that has potential traffic and it is harder to see that traffic when looking over your shoulder than through the front window of your car.

I can't really say if #2 is rational, but if the attendant is the only one CPR trained and codes (heart attack), I'll bet he will be wishing the entrant knows CPR. :-)

The rest I have no real answer for you.

Some juridictions don't permit backing into a parking space, because the license plate wouldn't be visible for police to check. Not all states have license plates onboth ends. Obviously backing in parking is not possible on the street that has parallel parking.

Happy to be not part of the confusion. I like this post. GA

I was impressed with your itemized explanation of the points mentioned in my post, I was somewhat surprised at the emotional tour taken in the last two paragraphs. I can assure you that I am about as American as you can get and I have never been or worked with a pack of low lives that would conduct themselves in your imagined fashion.

My history is that I have been responsible for peoples safety in the work place since about 1959, I have not had to call an ambulance or report a death in that time. I can count on my fingers the amount of times that I have had to open a first aid kit on the job. I take safety seriously.

I don't like to be jerked around and made to jump through hoops to get a job done. In your explanation of item 2, I like your take on redundant capability, I don't like having the choice of breaking the law or shutting down a job to get a person qualified in a skill he has no immediate use of.

Regarding item 3, well written, why don't I feel like you said anything definitive or definite.

Regarding item 4, I personally don't agree with your assessment of the Federal OSHA standards. The rest is plausible to me.

I agree with the last post that you deserve a good answer, I think I would want you on my side in a debate.

A couple of things that escape me follow;

1. Back in parking only - At what point does this eliminate backing up?

If you don't know - there are people who can tell you - IT IS A Difference worth knowing when you need to LEAVE VERY QUICKLY

2. In at least one state the state version of OSHA requires that in a confined space, both the attendant and the entrant must be CPR qualified. Is that rational? MOST INTERESTING - GIVE REFERENCE - ANYONE WORKING IN A CONFINED SPACE NEEDS TO KNOW OR BE CERITIFED IN CPR FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THOSE THEY ARE WORKING WITH INSIDE THE CONFINED SPACE - THE ATTENDANT IS ALSO NEXT TO GO IN BEFORE THE AMBULANCE COME

3. At what point does a suspended load become unsuspended enough for humans to work under it? 3FT FROM A FIXED SURFACE

4. Federal OSHA requirements have been "out safety-ed" by State requirements that have been "out safety-ed" by company safety departments that are trying to "out safety" each other. WATCH FOR YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY'S REQUIREMENTS AND THE PREMIUM....

5. There has to be a better way to do things. Any suggestions? DO ALOT OF THINKING FIRST AND FIND SOMEONE WHO REALLY KNOW SAFETY ISSUES AND RISK OF LITIGATION AND SELF Insurance

cw

Would you really send the attendant into an atmosphere that just disabled the entrant to rescue him? I would keep an ambulance on site with that attitude.

Back-in angle parking has some distinct merits. In particular, when about to exit from the space, the driver is closer to the street and has only to look over the hood of any vehicle to the left to see approaching traffic. The downsides are that greater care and time are needed to enter the space, and the typically greater overhang of rear bumpers will encroach more onto any adjoining sidewalk.

If there is a 3 feet off the ground criterion for suspended loads, that's really stupid. I certainly wouldn't crawl under a 15,000-pound object hanging that low from one crane hook, but I would feel quite safe under a similar object 20 feet up if redundantly suspended.

If you are jumping through some safety hoops at the behest of an insurance company, you are probably charged lower premiums for doing so; and if you think the criteria are excessive, you can try some other insurer. But with government regulation, no matter how silly, you have no choice. That said, most government inspectors I have encountered were proportionate and reasonable, but there have been some exceptions.

The reason for the safety in a confined space is because of the potential for noxious gases. When breaking the seal of that confined space both participants can be exposed. Some gases it doesn't take very much to incompacitate you.

Both should be wearing PPE. Some might lax the PPE issue for the attendant but that doesn't mean that person will not be exposed.

Primarily both are suseptible to exposure so it only makes sense that both be equally trained.

States aren't necessarily trying to out do one another.

Federal OSHA only covers the guidelines and leaves it up to the States to make up their own guidelines for specifics.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what OSHA has in writing regarding regulation, OSHA inspectors have the authority to penalize you for something even if it is within written OSHA specifications if they in their opinion think the issue is not safe enough.

I know of a case where a company was fined for having a bottle of window cleaner on the premisis without an MSDS on it, even though the bottle size was not enough to require an MSDS according to OSHA regulation.

It's pretty much standard that most State's OSHA regulations take after Michigan and California OSHA regulations as their benchmarks.

"In at least one state the state version of OSHA requires that in a confined space, both the attendant and the entrant must be CPR qualified. Is that rational?"

Sure in that environment whats to say something happens that the entrant needs to give aid to the attendant. It also gives the entrant some idea of what the attendant can do for him. In some cases relieving some of the stress of worrying about it. Whats the big complaint you pay someone to come in to train CPR usually the class is not full.

We when having CPR training we open it up to all company employees . You never know when you may need the skills to save friends or family. It also helps to have relief when doing CPR it can get very tiring fast.

It will also give you larger pool to pull from in your employees.

Since no one has come forth for Item 1

1. Why have vehicles back in rather than front in

A. For any processing plant with hazardous, flammable, toxic materials, liquids, and gases- say refineries

If ordered to evacuate Consider everyone trying to back out and turn ALL at the same time - choas = accidents = congestion/blockage of the evaucation route

When arriving vehicles arrive oa few or even one at a time...time is not critical and not everyone is turning at the same time....

therefore Even though the total time and gas may be identical the safety during evacuation/escape is critical...

For each day I will review one more safety items...there are reasons and it seems a poor reflection that these could not be answer by GOOD replies for each.

There has to be a better way to do things. Any suggestions?

I am a moron from Moronia, on the island of Phuket, Thailand. We have a better way. We give the dangerous jobs to people we don't like.
If they get killed, we proudly shout our island name to remind them of the name of their home, should they be reincarnated and need to give the bus driver instructions.