A lifting operation to remove roller-coaster trains from a track at Legoland, Windsor continued in an unsafe fashion, despite an earlier incident in which a worker suffered injuries in a fall from height.
Reading magistrates heard yesterday (7 February) that a 42-year-old worker, from Bracknell, was part of a team removing two damaged trains from the Dragon Coaster ride when he stepped on to a section of walkway, which had been removed and replaced but was not fixed in position.
The worker fell more than three metres to the ground, breaking his shoulder and several ribs. He was off work for two months.
The HSE investigation found that despite the serious injuries the worker sustained, the lifting operation continued in the same unsafe manner the following day. HSE inspector Karen Morris told SHP that a risk assessment was carried out prior to the incident, which stated that harnesses and lanyards should be used. However, because there were so many workers, the lanyards kept getting tangled up, so the operatives decided against using them.
Immediately following the incident, a new risk assessment was undertaken, which reiterated the instruction for workers to wear their fall-protection equipment, but, again, the team decided not to do so.
Added Inspector Morris: “Although this decision was made hands-on by the supervisor and the operatives, the senior management team visited the site at least twice on the first day and, again, on the second day. So, there was tacit approval by senior management, who watched them working but didn’t challenge them.”
Sentencing the operator of Legoland, Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd, the magistrates identified the failure to learn lessons immediately as an aggravating feature. This was reflected in the penalty, which comprised a £10,000 fine for the initial incident, relating to a breach of reg.4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, plus £13,200 for the same breach of the Regulations, relating to the work carried out on 2 June 2011, even though no incident occurred on that day. Full costs of £12,115 were levied.
The magistrates also concluded that management had “overestimated” the ability of the team of workers to carry out the task and suggested that, in hindsight, the company could have employed an external contractor.
Following the hearing, Merlin Attractions Operations issued a statement insisting that the health and safety of its employees and visitors is Legoland Windsor’s primary concern.
However, referring to its own investigation findings – which, it argued, showed that the Park had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its maintenance team, and that the incident occurred despite the work having undergone risk assessment – the company described the prosecution as “wholly unjustified”.€
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
But how many visitors to Legoland would actually read this story, or see the prosecution?
I visited LegoLand last year, and went on the ride in question (I felt it was dangerous as one of the loops is very close to the previous one!). However many of the thousands of visitors were foreign tourists, visiting as part of their holiday to the UK.
Unfortunately, as long as Lego as a brand has fans, people will go to these parks regardless of a health and safety record!
I think their “excellent safety record, procedures and culture” is reflected in the fact that their employees continued to work in an unsafe fashion despite one of their number suffering a serious injury the previous day and management supposedly re-enforcing the need for lanyards and harnesses.
As a skier of some years, skydiver with 1300+ jumps and rider of 1000cc motorbike; I know it’s the workplace and casual risk that’s most likely to kill me. When doing any of the above my awareness is heightened and I take no un-assessed chances because the consequence of failure is so great.
In this case Legoland didn’t provide the correct equipment/training, so your point is covered by s7 HASWA) is pointless.
Tolerence of known risk implies complicity in event of any resulting accident/incident.
And given the fact that they were aware of the previous lack of adoption of a serious control mechanism within the RA developed for the task, thier stance defies both believe or justification?
Thier prodcuderal appoach to safety is seriously flawed , yet they contest obvious facts?
How do they propose to learn from this incident by adoption of such a negative stance?
The article above states fall protection and does not mention fall prevention, restraint or arrest? Protection comes in many forms.
Additionally, the pendulum effect may impose impact risk below the working height,
distance and consequences apply. So selection of suitble equipment is paramount.
Schedule 5 of WAH confuses many so called competent people? They should really leave it to those who know. Competent to plan and competent to work apply.
Rarely enforced though?
Merlin Attractions appears to be taking encouragement from the Government’s persistent anti health and safety management discourse.
This seemingly allows them to blame the regulations for their failings – “but for the regulations (which are unfair and unreasonable because they don’t permit us to take risks with our workers as we see fit) we would have been in the right”, type of thing. It seems that execrable 19thC attitudes are alive and well in the 21st, alas.
I would question thier HSE leadership if they believe there efforts are best spent contesting HSE action, instead of establishing safe systems of work to enable these works to be undertaken. I would also have thought that with a visitor attraction, compliance and avoidance of HSE action would be paramount given the concerns a poor HSE record may give potential visitors.
The worker fell 3 meters. The wearing of fall protection at this low height would not have prevented the worker from hitting the floor. Lanyards at this height should only be used in restraint and for work positioning and with appropriate training.
The organisation’s response after the prosecution, says it all about their approach to health and safety.
A good risk assessment remains a piece of until the control measures are implemented fully. Management should have been sanctioned for not challenging the failure to comply with control measures stipulated by the revised risk assessment.
Unbelievable arogance shown in the Company’s statement. Shows a serious lack of any safety culture within this company and management clearly do not get what safety is really about. You would expect better of such a company and I hope the HSE pay them close attention in the future. They need to wake up and ‘smell the coffee’ and realise that unless they really learn from this they will kill someone else.
In a world where people can smoke, do any form of risky extreme sports, people are presented with the facts and they make their own decisions. In 1st party instances it should only be law for the employer to provide equipment, train, and show them the way, anything further should be repealed. If they choose not to follow that, its their decision. Nothing more than fascist dictatorship otherwise.
One fatality narrowly escaped, complete investigation, ignore RA and recommendations and commit the same offence again. Pay the price, not enough in my opinion, then call the prosecution “Wholly unjustified” and say that the “Health and safety of its employees and visitors is Legoland Windsor’s primary concern”.
It really does beggar belief.