"that,s the way we always did it " doesn,t mean sh#t anymore. if you can get a machine to do the job in full compliance of the rules you probably find it cheaper to buy the right machine for the job than pay the fines if some poor soul got hurt or worse {:<

The risk assessment route is very dangerous. There is a temptation for a person to do a risk assessment with blinkers on to "justify" failure to comply with the law. The overhead guard not only protects from falling objects, and that does NOT just mean the load or part thereof that becomes displaced at height. Further you have to consider the protection the rear overhead guard legs give to the operator who inadvertently reverses under something like a truck trailer........had to deal with one of those 30 years ago, very messy...

HSE will not give specific advice for fear of prosecution, read the disclaimers at the beginning of acops! You are just as guilty if you do a risk assessment and it is proved wanting when someone gets injured as not having done one at all.

You should be very careful suggesting that people can risk assess their way out of compliance as the mood suits.

As a "LOLER inspector" would you view the risk assessment and comment on its suitability?, state what standards are applicable? or???? Your choice of answer may entitle you top a cheap suit with arrows on it, or entitle you to enjoy sun and fresh air when it pleases you.

Hi I inspect trucks for loler and the owner has to do an risk assessment.If you need further info have a look on the H.S.E. web site, you can also post a question on the site,or ring there help line on 08453450055. hope this helps.

Edward T

With the law suits going around on narrow aisles products built without the rear OHG posts and later added as standard feature, I'd be careful of viewing the OHG as only protecting against FOPS. You are correct in what you state about OSHA/ASME requirements.

In a real life situation, a large glass manufacturing company I was working with, used a forklift in the 'cullot" (melted used glass) room, without an OHG. The forklift was fitted with a "truckers" mast and only need to lift totes 6"-12". However, there were several metal beams that extended down from the ceiling about 4'. The operators had to drive around them like a down hill skier on a slalom course. Yep, an operator managed to back into one of those beams with is head & back. Yes, they were cited for a lot of things - one being on OHG to protect the operator. Of coups, the courts awarded damages (small by comparison to today's standards).

This was in 1977/78 and OSHA and lawyers were just getting warmed up.

IF there is no possibility of the load going over the height of the head of the operator, there is no need for "falling object protection"