Safety in Construction and Design (Part 2) - Why Designers fail safety (and cost lives)

#safetyindesign #designforsafety #constructionsafety #workersafety #infrastructuresafety #historyofsafety #architects #civilengineering #structuralengineering #healthandsafety #safetyfirst #ilo

In Part 2 of this series on ‘safe by design’ in major building and infrastructure projects we explore the role of the Designer and why their involvement is essential.

We also consider why some fail to manage safety and why Clients should introduce formalised reviews in projects to make sure they get the best outcome for safety from their Design team.

Who is the Designer?

A building or major infrastructure project requires many construction Designers. They could be Architects, Town Planners, Project Managers, Quantity Surveyors, Product Specifiers, Designers of manufactured components, Contractors as well as Civil, Structural, Geo Tech and Building Services Engineers. There are other people who may become accidental Designers, like the interested Client who is busy giving detailed design instructions to the team.

What influence do they really have on safety?

The International Labor Office (ILO) identified the need for design professionals to become involved in construction safety, suggesting that 60% of construction accidents and incidents could have been eliminated, reduced, or avoided if different choices in the construction processes, including design, had been adopted.

Most often these accidents didn’t happen due to a single cause of failure, but resulted from a combination of conditions, mistakes, oversights, misunderstandings, ignorance and incompetence or even occasionally dishonest performance.

So early identification of hazards allows for them to be removed or better controlled during construction. The cost to remove hazards remains cheap in feasibility design drawings, but expensive once built.

In addition to designing out hazards, the process can speed production, improve quality and reduce cost using techniques like modular design, so components are made in safe and controlled manufacturing setting and then quickly and safely assembled on site.

Neglect for Health and Safety in Design

As shown in the earlier article (Part 1), despite the knowledge that hazards can be removed at source, they often aren’t. Audits by the Health and Safety Executive (UK) on Design for Safety suggests the reason unsafe designs were still being produced are attributed to the fact many Designers lack of knowledge about the risks they were supposed to be addressing. As a result, many produce useless information for Contractors and Clients with regards to hazards in the design and existing environment because they don't create opportunities to collectively review and remove these.

As a result, the likelihood of accidents increases as they are effectively being ‘designed in’ by Designers unaware of the impact their design decisions. This maybe due to lack of knowledge, a view that construction safety isn’t their prime consideration or even their job at all.

On introduction of the Mobile Construction Sites Directive (CDM in the UK), the Architects Council of Europe (ACE) even tried to block designer safety duties claiming “there is no credible evidence for claims that 35% of all fatal accidents can be attributed to design”. ?Other voices raised include RIBA (UK) who stated, “this could reflect the trends in the USA where nearly 25% of all professional negligence claims against architects are for death or personal injury”. So, a shift of responsibility was unwelcome.

In truth, why designers, including Architects, fail to consider health and safety in design is a complex mix of factors ranging from policies, culture, competency, resourcing, client commitment and lack of a combined processes to link this up.

The potential for accidents cannot always be removed; for example, stairs cannot always be ‘designed out’ and people will continue to be exposed to the risk of falling downstairs, however falls on these stairs can be reduced with introduction of bigger steps that are nonslip, better lit and provided with handrails. Simply put, designing out risk is the best option, but not the only safe option.

Neglect by the Designer - pursuit of artistic endeavour over safety and functionality

But when left unchecked, Designers can make a hazardous environment even worst for architectural aesthetics or just lack of consideration. Le Corbusier staircase was designed on the belief that incorporation of handrails would spoil the sculptured form. This took priority over safety considerations.

Yet other examples illustrates they can still look good and remain safe.

The original design of the Zubi-Zuri bridge in Bilbao, Spain had a footway made of glass that caused slipping accidents to pedestrians. This had to be rectified retrospectively with nonslip flooring and at extra cost.

The Architect, Calatrava took offence to these changes and issued a civil damages claim against the bridge owner for more than ￡2m for ‘enormous moral damage’ after alterations to his ‘work’ without his consent. He argued the bridge was an authentic work of art.

This indicates at the extremities, Designers when unsupported and unchecked may import additional hazards.

Conclusion

To conclude, Designers who do not design out hazards have effectively designed it in and responsible for injuries in construction and to end users because of it.

Designers and design are varied, complicated and requires continuous consultation with Clients, Legal Authorities, other Designers, Contractors, and eventual end users.

Some designers due to differing circumstances struggle to see the benefit or how they can practically do this. On rare occasions, others may just choose to ignore it.

But many Designers do this well giving Clients and Contractors safer buildings and infrastructure projects. These Designers have help via education on safe by design, mentoring, good design practice guidance, supportive Clients and most importantly a clear and defined process to follow.

The next Article (Part 3) explores a process Designers may wish to follow; and Clients may wish to insist upon to improve due diligence on Safety in Design for their projects.

??

Other articles in this ‘Safety in Construction and Design’ series covered:

Part 1. Safety in Construction and Design - Ancient origins

Part 3. Tools and tips for Clients, Designers and Constructors (to save lives);

Part 4. Case study showing why Design for Safety makes good business sense (and save lives)