Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15553421

Why BBS really works.

Abstract

Behavior-based safety does work. That has been proven over and over again, thousands of times. Why it works may not have been what they told you. Yes, the soon, certain, positive consequences will have an effect (a positive effect) on some deliberate behaviors, especially behaviors relating to personal protective equipment. But behavior-based safety or an observation and feedback process does much more than just provide soon, certain, positive consequences for safe behavior. Behavior-based safety also improves habits and increases awareness (eyes and mind on task). It takes hard work and skilled observers. The process must also be well managed and promoted. As mentioned before, it is hardly "free." But the rewards for all of this training and effort are huge. Injury reductions of 60-90 percent are nothing to sneeze at. If you had any doubt or were skeptical about the theory, I hope this has helped somewhat in terms of clearing up what really works and what doesn't in a behavior-based safety process. However, one thing that is not in doubt: Observation and feedback processes do work. That is why all of the safest companies in the world use them-not because they're expensive, time consuming, and must be actively managed, and not because these companies have a lot of spare time and extra cash. No, it is because observation and feedback processes reduce injuries; not by a little, but by 60 to 90 percent.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Larry Wilson. 2004. Why BBS really works.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15553421/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Biomonitoring of trace elements in the leaves and fruits of wild olive and holm oak trees.

Biomonitoring of trace elements is essential to assess ecosystem health, in particular in landscapes influenced by human activity. The Guadiamar Valley (SW Spain) was polluted in 1998 by a spill from an open-pit pyrite mine affecting about 55 km2. In this paper, we used two common species of tree, namely wild olive and holm oak, to biomonitor the concentration of nine trace elements-As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Tl and Zn-in this spill-affected area over the 3-year period 1999-2001. We analysed the leaves and fruits of trees growing in the spill-affected terraces, and compared them with adjacent trees in the non-affected upper terraces. The main trace elements polluting the soil were Zn, As, Pb and Cu. In general, the oak leaves were richer in trace elements than the olive leaves, reaching phytotoxic levels for As and Pb, while the olive fruits (pulp) were more polluted than the oak seeds (protected inside a hard pericarp), reaching toxic values for Cd and Pb. The concentration of trace elements in the leaves and fruits decreased with time and, in consequence, the toxicity risk to the food web diminished.

Accidents, Occupational↗

Computer simulations help determine safe vertical boom speeds for roof bolting in underground coal mines.

PROBLEM: Incident investigation reports do not usually contain enough information to aid in studying boom arm vertical speed for roof bolting machines to determine the impact that appendage speed had on an operator's risk of experiencing a contact. Laboratory experiments with human subjects are also not feasible because of safety and ethical issues. METHOD: Researchers successfully developed a three-dimensional computer model that uses virtual human simulation software as the primary means to gather contact data when the boom arm touches the operator's hand, arm, head, or leg. RESULTS: Data analysis of roof bolter simulations shows that the speed of the boom arm is the most important factor in determining the risk of an operator making contact. Regardless of other variables, contact incidents were always greater when the bolter arm was moving up, greater on the hand, and greater for the boom arm part of the machine. The reason why the subject experiences more contacts when the boom arm is moving up rather than down is that more risky behaviors occur during drilling and bolting when the boom arm is ascending. Based on the data collected, boom speeds greater than 13 in/sec result in a substantial increase in risk to the roof bolter operator of making contact. Speeds less than or equal to 13 in/sec are associated with a more modest relative risk of making contact, which represents a decrease in potential hazard. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The use of such information can be quite helpful in making recommendations to machine design and task procedures to reduce the likelihood that roof bolter operators will experience injury due to contact with a moving roof bolting machine's boom arm.

Accidents, Occupational↗