Forum

There's a fantastic discussion, started by Ben, currently in full flow on the forum.

The topic covers the chainsaw licencing. For anyone considering responsibility and licensing, replace chainsaw with digger, dumper, whacker plate, disc cutter, hedge trimmer etc etc.

I didn't want to see Ben's topic veer too far off its intended course but I'd like to bring another topic (slightly related) into discussion.

Part of me believes that equipment and material manufacturers have a responsibility - whether that's legal or moral - in what happens to their products post-sale.

In terms of equipment, should a manufacturer be compelled to provide compulsory training before the purchaser takes delivery of a piece of equipment? Should a paving manufacturer be a part of the supply chain and training post-sale.

To me there's two (or more) areas open for discussion.

A chainsaw or a mower - change that to any piece of operated machinery where the user or a member of the public, or co-worker, comes into close proximity - can cause death or severe injury at any time; even if being used sensibly and with care.

It is not possible to eliminate all risk but it is possible to reduce risk.

Both the buyer and the seller are easily seduced at the point of sale. The seller is keen to sell their wares because it is how they make their living. A buyer is keen to buy because it will potentially take their higher level of service.

Equipment demonstrations will often show how a blade cuts what it's intended to but rarely, if ever, visually explain what happens if a body part comes into contact with the moving part instead of the intended material.

How can the health and safety responsibilities be addressed during the sales process? 

Would compulsory point of sale safety training and certification work?

A cowboy's money is as good as yours

One other issue I've thought long and hard about is the manufacturers' responsibility to who it sells to.

For example, should a paving manufacture only sell a paving slab to someone who is recognised by the industry as someone trained to lay it, using a method that's a recognised industry standard?

Should a manufacturer care if a paving stone is laid on an inappropriate base using inappropriate bedding mortar? Should it matter to the manufacturer if the purchaser of its product doesn't lay the product properly and do a good job for the end client?

In landscaping there's usually two stages to a project where a garden is being re-landscaped. A product manufacturer will be keen to sell a product, or products, to the landscaper who then carries out the work of re-modelling a garden.

It is not a manufacturers legal responsibility thereafter to be involved with the waste disposal of any products which are removed.

A responsibly landscaper will hold a waste carriers license and use a recognised and legal method of removal. However, what if a landscaper enters into a legitimate transaction with a supplier to buy new materials but uses illegal methods with which to dispose of the old materials?

Should a product manufacturer concern itself with anything that happens post-sale?

Should a manufacturer offer  exchange/waste removal service as part of the transaction?

I once put a suggestion to a paving manufacturer that it would be useful if they offered a service to recycle old paving materials and ensure they were re-used in product manufacturing.

Can this work?