SAFE MACHINERY

Evening Star, Issue 21822, 11 September 1934, Page 11

SAFE MACHINERY

LEGISLATION REVIEWED SIXTY YEARS' WORK This year is the sixtieth anniversary of the enactment of the first Inspection of the 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. The number of machinery inspections for the year amounted to 20,025, an increase of 1,460 over the previous year. Seven fatal accidents and thirtythree non-fatal accidents were reported (luring the year, as against - nine and fifty respectively reported during the previous year. The circumstances of every accident were fully investigated by the department’s officers, and where possible additional safeguards were fitted to reduce the risk of a recurrence of similar accidents. THE FIRST ACT. 'l'be 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 on January 24, 1874, at the Kurunui Battery, Thames goldfield, 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 on 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 steam digesters were brought under inspection, and by 1908 all other steam pressure vessels were also similarly treated. Since 1927 air receivers working at pressures exceeding 301 b 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 1001 b per square inch was rare. Nowadays, pressures of 1801 b to 2001 b are common. Abroad quite a number of boilers are working at pressures' he-, tween 5001 b and ] ,0001 b per square inch, and even a few boilers have been constructed for a pressure of 3,0001 b per square inch “ In 1888 complaints were being made as to the iucompotency of many of the drivers then in charge of traction engines, which were rapidly superseding the horse-drawn portable engine. In 1891 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 certifiicates 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 engineers and had a superior knowledge of the design and operation of stenin machinery. Certain marine engineers’ certificates are also accepted ns muivalent to stationary engine drivers’ 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 wore 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 ro the Act. and brought under inspection. lu 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. arc also exempt from inspection.. In respect to the farm machinery, however, an owner who permits the moving parts of any such machinery to he used without being guarded is liable to prosecution. In 1908 all vehicles propelled by steam and all motors whose weight unladen exceeded three tons were brought under the Act. In 1928 an amendment wafe made to the Actlimiting 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 was raised to twelve years, and in 1902 to fourteeen years. “ Notwithstanding, however, the progress that has been made in mechanical safeguarding, accidents continue to occur. The majority of pre-sent-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 duo 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 fer 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 monetrary 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 dependents. An industry which has an unduly high accident rate must pay higher insurance premiums; it cannot maintain uninterrupted production and quality of work; it docs 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 support this view.”