TO PROTECT LIFE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 60, 8 September 1934, Page 10

TO PROTECT LIFE

SAFE MACHINERY

LEGISLATION REVIEWED

SIXTY YEARS' WORK

This year contains the sixtieth anniversary of the enactment of the first Inspection of Machinery Act, and reference to the increasing importance of this branch of work is made in the annual report of ..the Marine Department presented to Parliament yesterday. The number of machinery inspections for the year amounted to 20,025, an increase of 1460 over the previous year. Seven fatal accidents and thirty-three non-fatal accidents were reported during the year, as against nine and fifty respectively reported ' during tho previous year. The circumstance's of every accident were fully investigated by the Department's officers, and where possiblo additional safeguards were fitted to reduce the risk of a recurrence of similar accidents.

THE FIRST ACT. The first Act was introduced into the House of Representatives in 1874 by the Hon. Edward Richardson, member for Christchurch City West and Minister of Public Works. The necessity for such legislation had been agitating the public mind for some years prior to this period. Many boiler explosions and serious accidents with machinery were occurring with disastrous results to life and property. Following an: explosion of a boiler oh January 24, 1874, at the Kurunui Battery, Thames goldficld, by which three persons were 'killed, a Royal Commission ,was appointed on February 21, 1874, to inquire.into the causes of the explosion, and the condition of the boilers, and machinery generally tin the goldfield. The Commission reported that there, was a remarkable unanimity of opinion in favour of the plan of Government inspection. "Since 1874 steam has come into use for other, purposes than driving engines, and compressed air, often under high pressure, has also come into general use," the .report states. "Proper periodical inspection of steam-pressure vessels and air-receivers is necessary if explosions are to be avoided. As these pressure vessels came into general use', the legal definition of boiler was extended to include them. • In 1894 steamdigfesters were brought under inspection, and by 1908 all other steam-pres-sure vessels were also similarly treated. Since 1927 air-receivers working at pressures exceeding 301b per square inch have been subject to periodical inspection. "In the search for efficiency, boiler pressures have crept'higher and higher. Up to 1890 a pressure higher than 1001b per square inch was rare. Nowadays, pressures of 1801b to 2001b are common. Abroad quite a number of boilers are working at pressures between 5001b and 10001b per square inch, and even a few boilers have been constructed for a pressure of 30001b per square inch. "In 1888 complaints were being made as to the incompetency of many of the drivers then in charge of traction engines, which were rapidly superseding the horse-drawn portable engine. In 1894 provision was made in the Act for the examination of engine-drivers of locomotives and traction engines, and drivers of winding-engines, and for the issue of appropriate certificates to applicants passing the examinations. In 1900 a similar provision was made for engine-drivers of stationary engines other than winding-engines, and for the issue of an extra first-class engineers' certificate to applicants who were trained eugineers and had a superior knowledge of tho design and operation of steam machinery.' Certain marine engineers' certificates are also accepted (IS equivalent to stationary engine--'lrivers' certificates.

. STATUTE WIDENED. The remarkable development of machinery driven by mechanical power during'the last sixty years is well known. It is not surprising, therefore, that as new kinds of machinery were made for an increasing variety of manufacturing processes, the schedule in the original Act defining the class of machinery subject to inspection should have been extended. New sources of power, such as gas, oil, and electricity, greatly assisted in this development. It was in 1896 that machinery driven by electricity was first made subject to inspection. Four years later, machinery driven by gas, gaseous products, and compressed air was also defined as machinery subject to the Act, and brought under inspection. In 1908 machinery driven by hand or animal power was excluded from the provisions of the Act. At the present time machinery driven by power of 1 h.p. and under and farm machinery not exceeding 6 h.p. are also exempt from inspection. In respect to the farm machinery, however, an owner who permits the moving parts of any such machinery to be used without being guarded is Hablo to prosecution. In 190S all vehicles propelled by steam and all motors whose weight unladen exceeded three tons wore brought under the Act. In 192S_ an amendment was made to the Act limiting its application to steam wagons and other special types of steam-driven vehicles. In 1927 the standard of safety for lifts and cranes was raised. These special classes of machinery are now required to conform to safety standards as regards design and construction, as well as to be properly fenced and guarded. In 1874 a child of ten years of age could be employed in working machinery. In 1882 the age at which a young person could work machinery j was raised to twelve years, and in 1902 to fourteen years. "Notwithstanding, however, the progress that has been made in mechanical safeguarding, accidents continue to occur. The majority of present-day accidents are due'to failure of the human factor —for instance, to such failings as inattention, lack of skill or experience, unfit physical condition, ignorance of safety practices, or disobedience of safety instructions. Far too many accidents occur through workers approaching moving machinery normally out of reach. If more interest were taken by employers'and workers in the prevention of accidents due to human fallibility, an improvement in the accident rate could be made. "In the final analysis of a brief review of the history and progress of the inspection of machinery legislation and the engineering measures taken for the prevention of machinery accidents, one may ask whether it has all been worth while and beneficial in its results to employers and -workers. It is now an established fact that 'safety' pays. It has "been authoritatively stated that the total cost to an employer of an accident to a workman is four times the direct cost —that is, four times the cost of medical and compensation costs. There is also the monetary loss to the victim of an accident to be taken into account even when he receives some compensation, and also the physical and mental torture suffered by him and his dependants. An industry which has an unduly high accident rate must pay higher insurance premiums; it cannot maintain uninterrupted production and quality of work; it does not attract a good class of workman, and cannot, therefore, produce efficiently and cheaply. There is evidence in the voluntary support given by them to national safety-first associations that enlightened industrialists suppiprt this view.'*