Comments by Tim Blanchard

Tim Blanchard
Member - 9 posts

Surely Network Rail rules should prohibit workers who do not possess a track safety certificate from working near rail tracks. This is basic. Certainly a blue hat will afford no more protection to a person than any other colour. Trains tend to be large, fast and heavy. It would be interesting to read Network Rails policy with regard to train drivers and the action to be taken depending on the colour of the helmet. Would a colour blind driver be employed by Nework Rail or would a plea of mitigating circumstaces be accepted as he didn't realise the helmet was blue?
All employees should be fully trained in workplace hazards before being exposed to them.

Tim Blanchard
Member - 9 posts

It would be interesting to know if such contractors are due any redundancy pay should their contract be extended to years rather than months.

Tim Blanchard
Member - 9 posts

Thanks Tony, The basic problem is the published guidelines quote minimum bay sizes, but these are generally accepted as "what they have to be".

Maybe some bright politician will introduce the "peoples car" of uniform size, the Fiat 500 with a length of 3.55m and a width of 1.63m may just fit the requirements, and all the parking problems will disappear with the added bonus of shorter traffic queues. Oh blast it, I've just realised my idea is 60 years old :)

Tim Blanchard
Member - 9 posts

As a designer of Car Parks and Safety Consultant, I've been watching this blog with interest. Recently, I submitted a design for a multi-storey car park on a very tight site. Car park design is normally made with reference, as a minimum, to BS8800:2001 and the Institute of Structural Engineers publication - Design Recommendations for Multi-storey and Underground Car Parks. The recommended bay width and length is 2.4m x 4.8m to suit a "standard car". Personally, I feel this is too tight and encourage the use of bays 2.5m x 5.0m to accomodate the increased dimensions of modern cars.

Noting the additional 1.2m safety zone for boot access required to the "special needs" bays and the 1.2m access zone between adjacent "special needs" bays my design was for a 25 storey split level storey carpark and was considered by the Architect as a good design and user friendly. The design was submiited in accordance with the specification to providea carpark with 450 spaces including 30 "special needs" parking bays.

However, the the estimators did not agree. It was over budget and I was instructed to "loose" two levels from each side, reducing the building height to 21 storeys.

This necessitated a total redesign, the 2.5m x 5.0m bays had to go and were replaced with the minimum 2.4m x 4.8m bays, headroom restrictions were introduced to upper floor levels and the design accepted at the revised building height.

This is an example of how design suffers at the stroke of an accountants pen. The effect of designing to minimum dimensions with little consideration to the change in vehicle characteristics is an error frequently made and we the and we then all suffer as a result. Parking a 1960's Austin Mini alongside the current BMW Mini will highlight my point. Even a large family saloon of the sixties such as the Ford Zodiac or Vauhall Cresta would now not look so large when parked alongside a Ford Focus of Toyota Avensis.

The family car is, in most case, the second most expensive item we purchase, after the family home. I can only agree with earlier responses to "vote with your tyres". Those Clients who commission car parks and those designers who design car parks need to be encouraged to increase bay sizes to accomodate the average modern car. Few people now drive the Classic models the 2.4m x 4.8m bays were originally established for.

Hats off to the like of Waitrose who have the forward thinking to address this problem in their car park design.

Tim Blanchard
Member - 9 posts

There is a possibility that some persons did smell the gas, but took no action and continued to work normally. By continuing to breath a substance, the olfactory cells become numb or accustomed to the substance and no longer detect the smell, causing the victim to believe the hazard has gone away.

At that stage, the CNS (central nervous system) may attempt to raise other signals, such as headache, nausea etc. If these signals are not recogniosed and exposure continues, the body will continue to try and metabolise the substance and eventually the LD50 (leathal dose that kills 50% of a group) shall be exceeded.

The LD50 threshold may be exceeded due to either of ar a combiation of: type of organism exposed , amount or dose of substance exposed to, duration of exposure or the route of entry of the substance (injection, ingestion or inhalation)

Further, it has to be noted that LPG is heavier than air and will sink to the bottom of a basement, forming a "sea" of gas. Only when the basement becomes full of gas will the LPG become noticed above ground level. So it's not suprising "nobody" smelled lhe gas, they may well have done but failed to recognise the danger.

The volume of LPG filling a basement would no doubt be significant and only needed a source of ignition to be introduced for the tragic results to become obvious.
Soter.D

Tim Blanchard
Member - 9 posts

If the accountant is unable to ascertain when he stood on the grape, in the store or in the car park, then clearly he was walking without due care and attention. He should have been aware of the sudden loss of grip and been able to control his balance. I would question if he was under the influence of the grape (in liquid form) and tell him to stop gripe and thank his lucky stars he didn't fall down the pears. :)