November 20 - November 26, 2016

Do you find safety rules and regulations governing scaffolds and scaffold-related hazards such as falls, failing objects, structural instability, overloading and electrocution easy to understand and follow? *Editor's Note: Poll answer options were updated Nov. 22.


Answers Votes
Other, please comment. 87%
Yes, the regulations are understandable. 7%
No, the rules need to be simplified. 6%


Suggest a topic

   

Tagged categories: Access; Cranes; Good Technical Practice; Ladders; lift; OSHA; Regulations; Scaffolding; Tower; Work platform

Comment from Jesse Melton, (11/21/2016, 9:53 AM)

The available survey responses are not valid as there's no like-for-like comparison. One response (Yes) is derived entirely from within the poll question. The (No) response encompasses information in the poll question AND adds to it with a predefined solution with no origin in the question. You can't do that if meaningful responses are desired as the responses are not directly comparable. Both responses must have a predefined solution or neither can have a predefined solution. Otherwise you can't know what element(s) respondents used to weight their decision making process. Reformat the question and/or available responses and present the survey again. Only then can meaningful data be created.


Comment from Sheldon Wolfe, (11/21/2016, 9:14 PM)

Like most of the poll questions, the options leave little choice but to choose an answer that is unsatisfactory. In this case, for example, the regulations may be understandable but still would benefit from simplification. As they evolve, it is likely they will become more complicated and harder to understand.


Comment from Jesse Melton, (11/22/2016, 7:30 AM)

Not answering is always an option :) A really important part of this; is who was this survey for? Right now the respondents are 17% in favor of simplifying the rules and 83% think the rules are understandable. That's unnaturally uneven which potentially creates an entirely new safety problem. Statistical validity has no bearing on things like admissibility in court. It's the other guy's problem to argue the information isn't solid. A primary contractor's defense lawyer can make a big mess with lopsided information like this. In high liability publishing a courtroom style decision making process is often used to determine if a book proposal is worth moving forward with. It would suck if a potentially useful resource didn't go to market because the results of this survey were used as part of the argument to undermine the need for such a resource. D+D bills themselves as targeting career tradespeople and has some responsibility in ensuring they aren't muddying the water with wonky data.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Advertisements
 
KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office

 
Fischer Technology Inc.

 
Sauereisen, Inc.

 
ABKaelin, LLC

 
NLB Corporation

 
DeFelsko Corporation

 
Modern Safety Techniques

 
Sidewinder/Persyst Enterprises, Inc.

 
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America

 
SAFE Systems, Inc.

 
 
 

Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL webmaster@paintsquare.com


The Technology Publishing Network

PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us