Seven-year-olds banned from tractors

trixychic

twin_beacon wrote: »

The reality is, during silage making/slurry spreading, any kid that is interested in farming will want to be, and will involved in it. the safest place for them is the cab of the tractor, even more so with modern tractors. Forcing them outside for the cab, means they will be hanging around the field/yard which is much more dangerous.

Hold on. My kids are very interested in my job and i know that they would love to come with me. That doesn't mean i bring them to work.

My sister was always so excited about the work of our aunt. But she Didnt get to go with her.

Just because they want to go, doesn't mean i let them. They are also excited about the thoughts of flying in air planes. Do you ever see a pilot sitting in a cock pit with their son or daughter because "is interested" in becoming a pilot?
No you don't.

loyatemu

would it be ok for a builder to bring his kids to the site provided they stayed in the cab of the JCB?

trixychic

loyatemu wrote: »

would it be ok for a builder to bring his kids to the site provided they stayed in the cab of the JCB?

Exactly. Any other work place wouldn't allow it.

kowtow

trixychic wrote: »

Do you ever see a pilot sitting in a cock pit with their son or daughter because "is interested" in becoming a pilot?
No you don't.

You don't see it every day, but you do see it. On at least one occasion with tragic consequences if I remember.

It's not normal to take a child to an external workplace - although it's not unheard of on an occasional basis. In fact it is encouraged - "take your daughter to work day" has been a huge success for years in many countries. If we do it here, we had better hold it on a day when there are no tractors working..

The trouble is that whether we like it or not, farming is different, perhaps especially so in Ireland where small family farms are still the norm. It isn't normal to have an industry where the majority of independent business are unprofitable on any sane accounting test, or viable only with continuous and market-distorting government subsidy - but with family farms we do it, because we believe that farming is not pure workplace or pure business but in some way vocation. Part of farming is learning to be a custodian of the land for future generations, and allowing those generations to absorb that responsibility over time for themselves. Without that how would they ever be mad enough to do it?

The same cannot easily be said for a factory or an office.

Some of us live in the middle of the yard, some don't. Some farms are busy with tractors, some aren't - this one only had horses until a handful of years ago. The differences between them are what make them special.

What we should all agree is that safety is something to be learned by all of us and taught by all of us on a daily basis. When I look at my teenage son and his friends I still see a worrying, macho, devil-may-care risk taking streak around farm machinery which I recognise from my own youth. We might do better to figure out how to educate out that defect, which continues into adult-hood with disastrous results, than prescribe a one size fits all rule which says that an eight year old can sit in a cab without let or hindrance but her brother two months younger cannot.

mahoney_j

kowtow wrote: »

You don't see it every day, but you do see it. On at least one occasion with tragic consequences if I remember.

It's not normal to take a child to an external workplace - although it's not unheard of on an occasional basis. In fact it is encouraged - "take your daughter to work day" has been a huge success for years in many countries. If we do it here, we had better hold it on a day when there are no tractors working..

The trouble is that whether we like it or not, farming is different, perhaps especially so in Ireland where small family farms are still the norm. It isn't normal to have an industry where the majority of independent business are unprofitable on any sane accounting test, or viable only with continuous and market-distorting government subsidy - but with family farms we do it, because we believe that farming is not pure workplace or pure business but in some way vocation. Part of farming is learning to be a custodian of the land for future generations, and allowing those generations to absorb that responsibility over time for themselves. Without that how would they ever be mad enough to do it?

The same cannot easily be said for a factory or an office.

Some of us live in the middle of the yard, some don't. Some farms are busy with tractors, some aren't - this one only had horses until a handful of years ago. The differences between them are what make them special.

What we should all agree is that safety is something to be learned by all of us and taught by all of us on a daily basis. When I look at my teenage son and his friends I still see a worrying, macho, devil-may-care risk taking streak around farm machinery which I recognise from my own youth. We might do better to figure out how to educate out that defect, which continues into adult-hood with disastrous results, than prescribe a one size fits all rule which says that an eight year old can sit in a cab without let or hindrance but her brother two months younger cannot.

Don't care what anyone says ,farming is not different.it is s job just like many others .i worked off farm for 10 years and if I wanted to Bering my daughter to work id of got some response.the farm death/accident statistics over last few years are a poor reflection on the sector.cop on and stop making excuses .its a pity we don't put same emphasis on farm safety that we do on farm efficiency ,cost control,grass budgeting etc

kowtow

mahoney_j wrote: »

Don't care what anyone says ,farming is not different.it is s job just like many others .i worked off farm for 10 years and if I wanted to Bering my daughter to work id of got some response.the farm death/accident statistics over last few years are a poor reflection on the sector.cop on and stop making excuses .its a pity we don't put same emphasis on farm safety that we do on farm efficiency ,cost control,grass budgeting etc

I'm not making any excuses, and I'm utterly appalled by the level of safety on Irish farms and the lax attitude of most of the enforcing authorities.

It's just that one size fits all regulations aren't a great way to deal with these things, usually because they allow regulators to say something is being done when in reality it isn't.

And if we really want to run farms as a pure business, staffed only by professionals and owned by rational shareholders, with all the attendant financial risks and costs of safety compliance then there are far more effective ways to go about it than fiddling with a couple of HSA regulations - but we need to accept that the family farm and landholding is a thing of the past, stop subsidising & encouraging hobby farming, and accept that this country should probably have about a quarter of the 'working' farms it has today.

On the plus side, there would be a lot less tractors around to fit safety seats in.

twin_beacon

loyatemu wrote: »

would it be ok for a builder to bring his kids to the site provided they stayed in the cab of the JCB?

doesn't really apply, unless your house is surrounded by building sites, where as houses in the country side are surrounded by farms.

The law doesn't ban children from farms, just from the cabs of tractors. If kids are going to be around farms during the busy summer period, then the safest place for them to be, is inside the cab of a tractor.

twin_beacon

mahoney_j wrote: »

Don't care what anyone says ,farming is not different.it is s job just like many others .i worked off farm for 10 years and if I wanted to Bering my daughter to work id of got some response.the farm death/accident statistics over last few years are a poor reflection on the sector.cop on and stop making excuses .its a pity we don't put same emphasis on farm safety that we do on farm efficiency ,cost control,grass budgeting etc

well, if you want to use those stats in to back up your argument, then compare the number of accidents that happened inside the cab of a tractor, vs ones outside the cab. My point here has always been that the inside of a cab (unless the tractor itself is old and poorly maintained) is a lot safer then forcing kids to be outside the cab.

frazzledhome

Very good points made that no reasonable person can disagree with

Forget tractors for a minute. Kids under 10 not allowed on farms. So I'm feeding a few calves they can't come, mucking out a pony, they can't come, stand in a gap etc

Many farm houses are in the farm yard what's to do here. Here if silage is on no kids allowed save the one who's turn it is to travel with me. I'd never ask another person to take one.

We all have safety statements for our beef audit and that's about it. It's about educating farmers and families about risks.

3 times a year my wife and I take kids around the farm outlining the risks. We have had a major accident on the farm 10 yrs ago so its not taken safety is not taken lightly. Supervise and educate

I said

theemigrant wrote: »

Ive a 3 yr old who is absolutely tractor mad. I bought him a tractor lawnmower that we can set in first gear and let him mosey along at 1/2 mile per hour. Now after reading this I'm wondering if its such a good idea. I would have been reared on machinery, i was driving diggers from 5/6 yrs of age but i was always thought of the dangers also. I suppose maybe i was just lucky that i never had an accident or injured someone else.

What speed does the blade cut at,little toes or fingers gone in an instant.

djmc

It could be a slippery slope 7 year olds now might be raised to 17 in years time and changed to all commercial vehicles then if the wife is working and you get a call some evening cattle are on the road do you lock kids in the house alone .
You also see kids with truck lorry drivers sometimes.
I'm not against safety and don't allow kids on farm without there mothers supervision.
I think when regulations come in on farming they usually get more strict and nonsensical as time goes by and common sense goes out the window.
I would be in favour of a website showing a list of farm deaths and injury's and cause's and work on most common first .
I would think livestock slurry gas PTO guards falls handbrakes would be far more likely to cause tragedy

trixychic

I don't think you can compare bring your son/daughter to work as the same as kids being on farms all the time. And i don't think its just for tractors. Farm animals can be very unpredictable. I come from a sheep and horse farm. My oh is from a cattle farm. Too many times i saw new mum animals taking a dislike to My mum or my sister bein around them.

Ok for ppl who are seriously putting their kids first and are 100% supervising the kids fine. The problem is that this doesn't happen. Kids go out all the time, while mums and dads, while they think they are lookin after the kids, are also focused on their work. And you may miss something.

My father in law nearly lost his life when he took my oh up with him one time. Oh was in the cab, father in law (fil) got out to check the mower on the back and oh pulled a lever in the cab. Nearly crushed fil.

In cabs or on the farm. Its not a place for a child.

As for those who's house is in the middle of the yard, i have yet to come across a house like this that doesn't have some sort of garden. And i know plenty of them.

kowtow

frazzledhome wrote: »

Forget tractors for a minute. Kids under 10 not allowed on farms. So I'm feeding a few calves they can't come, mucking out a pony, they can't come, stand in a gap etc.

? Is the under 10 thing part of any legislation?

I remember a time in the UK when Tony Blair decided that shotgun licences should be limited to over 18s and only over 18's should be able to use a shotgun, unlike the traditional situation where a child could shoot under the supervision of an adult. To the public it seemed such a reasonable piece of legislation - who would want a gun in the hands of a child? It received widespread support.

But to those of us who shot regularly, the proposed rule change was vitriolic and dangerous .On our shoot - like many others - we had 2 children of the guns forming the back of the line every week, carrying empty 410's until a certain age and then being allowed to move into the line for the last drive as a special treat - all the time learning to work the dogs, to respect the game and identify it, and all the time having safety safety safety drilled into them in rain or shine for, literally, years before they were ever allowed to shoot.

If Tony Blair had got his way (he didn't) I might find myself in the line after a partly liquid lunch next to an 18 year old rich kid who had never carried a gun or been on a game shoot in his life, rather than a child who had grown up learning to raise birds, work dogs, & understanding that actually shooting was the least important part of the whole exercise.

I know which one I would rather take a peg beside.

Most of us are parents, all of us want children to be safe. What age is a child? Legally speaking it is 18, with certain exceptions. Are all children under 18 or 16 to be banned from farms... and presumably riding stables and other agricultural premises? just as they would be from factories and other workplaces.. is it not the role of the parent to decide what responsibilities can safely be taken on by a particular child and at what age?

One size fits all is rarely a good thing.

trixychic

kowtow wrote: »

? Is the under 10 thing part of any legislation?

I remember a time in the UK when Tony Blair decided that shotgun licences should be limited to over 18s and only over 18's should be able to use a shotgun, unlike the traditional situation where a child could shoot under the supervision of an adult. To the public it seemed such a reasonable piece of legislation - who would want a gun in the hands of a child? It received widespread support.

But to those of us who shot regularly, the proposed rule change was vitriolic and dangerous .On our shoot - like many others - we had 2 children of the guns forming the back of the line every week, carrying empty 410's until a certain age and then being allowed to move into the line for the last drive as a special treat - all the time learning to work the dogs, to respect the game and identify it, and all the time having safety safety safety drilled into them in rain or shine for, literally, years before they were ever allowed to shoot.

If Tony Blair had got his way (he didn't) I might find myself in the line after a partly liquid lunch next to an 18 year old rich kid who had never carried a gun or been on a game shoot in his life, rather than a child who had grown up learning to raise birds, work dogs, & understanding that actually shooting was the least important part of the whole exercise.

I know which one I would rather take a peg beside.

Most of us are parents, all of us want children to be safe. What age is a child? Legally speaking it is 18, with certain exceptions. Are all children under 18 or 16 to be banned from farms... and presumably riding stables and other agricultural premises? just as they would be from factories and other workplaces.. is it not the role of the parent to decide what responsibilities can safely be taken on by a particular child and at what age?

One size fits all is rarely a good thing.

Ok shooting is a hobby. Again my father in law shoots. But it is seasonal and is not your profession.

i don't understand how farmers on a daily bases are allowed to bring children to work. That's what they are doing. Workplaces are not designed with children in mind. They are a place of business. Not a place for children.

Edited to say apologies for saying "your profession." meant to say his profession as in my father in laws.

frazzledhome

kowtow wrote: »

? Is the under 10 thing part of any legislation?

I remember a time in the UK when Tony Blair decided that shotgun licences should be limited to over 18s and only over 18's should be able to use a shotgun, unlike the traditional situation where a child could shoot under the supervision of an adult. To the public it seemed such a reasonable piece of legislation - who would want a gun in the hands of a child? It received widespread support.

But to those of us who shot regularly, the proposed rule change was vitriolic and dangerous .On our shoot - like many others - we had 2 children of the guns forming the back of the line every week, carrying empty 410's until a certain age and then being allowed to move into the line for the last drive as a special treat - all the time learning to work the dogs, to respect the game and identify it, and all the time having safety safety safety drilled into them in rain or shine for, literally, years before they were ever allowed to shoot.

If Tony Blair had got his way (he didn't) I might find myself in the line after a partly liquid lunch next to an 18 year old rich kid who had never carried a gun or been on a game shoot in his life, rather than a child who had grown up learning to raise birds, work dogs, & understanding that actually shooting was the least important part of the whole exercise.

I know which one I would rather take a peg beside.

Most of us are parents, all of us want children to be safe. What age is a child? Legally speaking it is 18, with certain exceptions. Are all children under 18 or 16 to be banned from farms... and presumably riding stables and other agricultural premises? just as they would be from factories and other workplaces.. is it not the role of the parent to decide what responsibilities can safely be taken on by a particular child and at what age?

One size fits all is rartely a good thing.

Sorry for quoting full post, on phone

No rule for 10yo but how long. My point being mine will and do have jobs to do in the farm yard. 2 have hens and one has a heifer and calf to look after the other doesn't know a tractor from a heifer. If we had a Fendt he'd come down, high maintenance

twin_beacon

trixychic wrote: »

i don't understand how farmers on a daily bases are allowed to bring children to work. That's what they are doing. Workplaces are not designed with children in mind. They are a place of business. Not a place for children.

its not like children are on farms for 10 hours a day, or even on a daily basis. I grew up on a farm, when ever I had to help out I did. What age should they be allowed on the farm? From day one, I was thought how to do things correctly, and respect cattle, as they can be dangerous. Its not like children are let loose to play for hours on end on farm yards.

trixychic

Helping out as a child is fine. I just wouldn't letting the very young children out when there is serious work being done. Being on an in active farm is completely different to being on one when it is in full swing. I can bring my kids into work on my lunch break when everything is quiet and things are at a stand still. I can show them around and they think its such an adventure. But once the work place is back up and running, they are gone. It should be the same for farms. When work is being done kids shouldn't be there.

kowtow

trixychic wrote: »

Ok shooting is a hobby. Again my father in law shoots. But it is seasonal and is not your profession.

i don't understand how farmers on a daily bases are allowed to bring children to work. That's what they are doing. Workplaces are not designed with children in mind. They are a place of business. Not a place for children.

Edited to say apologies for saying "your profession." meant to say his profession as in my father in laws.

I understand the logic of that position, but unquestionably a child is a person under 18, or in certain limited cases 16. The very good reasons for this have to do with legal capacity. Under 16 a child would be virtually uninsurable, to the extent that any task was delegated to or performed by him / her.

Until which of these ages should we ban children from the farm? (as employers do from most other workplaces)

paddysdream

paddysdream wrote: »

Good idea in theory but will be like a lot of things;never enforced unless something serious happens.
Farming and life in general seems to become more and more regulated each year and this is I presume a sop to all the farm accidents involving children in the last couple of years.

To be honest have kids here and never too fond of them on the tractor.Not maybe from their safety point of view but from the point of view that its rather difficult at times to give the job at hand your full attention whilst keeping an eye on the kid.
Would there be the same level of concern from posters if they decided to say ban all under 7s from going down the coal mines with their dads or maybe hanging around a building site or engineering factory with him all day?
Think those industries have a better safety record than the one we are involved in.

That said would rather a young lad up beside me where I can see him than running around the field or yard.Depends on the job in hand I suppose.Tipping around the field herding or something like ploughing then grand but say drawing silage,mowing etc then its a different story.

That said,some parents have no concept of danger or are too thick to see it.For example see one place at silage where the kids wander around the yard at all times(even around the pit as loads are tipped) and as soon as you arrive Daddy lands one up in each tractor and might not look for them again for hours.Got to the stage where now tell them that insurance prohibits any kids on machinery.Rather hard to concentrate on a high speed job when you have a 5 year old bouncing around on the passenger seat in the dark.

Up to now farms and the farm houses have gone hand in hand but they are being viewed (kinda rightly) as industrial facilities. Balls is that farm houses and farm yards are together so you are always going to have kids about

trixychic

kowtow wrote: »

I understand the logic of that position, but unquestionably a child is a person under 18, or in certain limited cases 16. The very good reasons for this have to do with legal capacity. Under 16 a child would be virtually uninsurable, to the extent that any task
was delegated to or performed by him / her.

Until which of these ages should we ban children from the farm? (as employers do from most other workplaces)

I can see your point and I wouldn't be against older children ie teens goin to help as much as i would children. Any of the farm stories that i have heard which include children tend to be more of the younger children. Ie toddlers to 10 year

I started working at 14. Teens are well capable of lookin after themselves and they can hold some responsibility. Children just can't.

Username John

I am a bit surprised at the reaction by some posters.

Is it the age (of 7) that people have an issue with?
Or just the fact that its a law, and we are being told what to do?

I think its a good thing.

But... I will say am unaffected, as even though I have small kids, the tractor I have doesn't accommodate passengers - so its easy for me to accept it.

kowtow

trixychic wrote: »

I can bring my kids into work on my lunch break when everything is quiet and things are at a stand still. I can show them around and they think its such an adventure. But once the work place is back up and running, they are gone. It should be the same for farms. When work is being done kids shouldn't be there.

I think that is the whole point. It is a question of discretion, when things are busy or dangerous children who are too young (which depends on what the job in hand is) should be safely out of the way, so that we can concentrate knowing they are safe.

But when they aren't, we can have them around - and show them around, and teach them. And why not safely seated in a proper passenger seat of a cab?

Speaking as someone who employs people off-farm as well I would suggest that the main reason children aren't allowed in the workplace on a regular basis is not safety per se but the danger of them distracting the employee from the task they are being paid for - in the case of most farmers we are talking about, they are the employer, and therefore presumably make up their own minds about this.

paddysdream

whisky_galore wrote: »

I would think complacency, taking short cuts and over familiarity would have a lot to do with this, and when things start getting out of hand esp. stock handling they can be a lot slower than a younger person to get out of harm's way.

Don't know if I would trust a kid in a tractor cab NOT to touch anything whilst I was off on the ground, even accidentally, education is all well and good and saying that my little Mary or my Johnny wouldn't do that, would you bet your life on it? This is a child who probably has very little concept of death and potential hazards... it only takes one second of curiousity, devil makes work for little hands. Most of us p*ssed around with tractor controls and car handbrakes like they were Fisher Price activity centres in our time, I'll bet.

Having children in the tractor where you can see them seemed like a good idea to me until a couple of years ago.
Young lad,5 at the time was off school and I decided to bring him with me to mow a field for a neighbour.1 hour job so no chance of him getting too bored.

Headed down to yard,raised mower to change blades and tractor in park(JD) with lift locked up and tractor off with key out.Plonked him into the cab with strict instructions not to touch anything.

As I was walking behind(thankfully) the mower with a box of blades saw him pushing quad and shuttle levers back and forwards and thought no more of it till saw tractor rolling forward(slight brow at front of shed) with child screaming.
Tractor rolled about 20 ft. till front wheel struck a block wall and flattened it and then stopped.
Young lad had pulled park lever into neutral.Honestly didn't think he could as its quiet stiff.
Unsure as to who got a bigger fright ,him or me.If the wheel hadn't struck the wall it would have travelled about 100m before meeting a mass concrete wall and at speed as the yard slopes a bit down to there.

To top it all had a HSA inspector call 2 days later as I was rebuilding the wall.Needless to say didn't think to mention it to him.

_Brian

Some great excuses and lads justifying things to themselves here, making changes is never easy.

I worked on a farm where a child fell from the cab of a tractor and the father crossed it. I was talking to him about it and he thought it was safe, never dreamt an accident of that nature would happen on their farm, he'd been brought up bouncing round on 35's and the like himself but thought his tractor was safe.
I worked on that farm maybe a dozen times and dreaded turning in the gate every single time I had to.

kowtow

_Brian wrote: »

Some great excuses and lads justifying things to themselves here, making changes is never easy.

There should not need to be excuses.

But that does not mean to say there should be regulation, either. The original question is whether this regulation makes children safer, which I doubt. On the other hand there is a danger that once we have ticked all the HSA checkboxes we will mistakenly feel that we are working safely.

But whatever happened to responsibility? We were brought up to understand that our actions are our own; that our job is to make our own way and to educate and to protect our children - not to foist of the job of deciding what is safe to some invisible arm of government.

Keep children away from the farm, unless you can be sure it is safe that they are with you.

Don't rely on the government, or HSA, or the tooth fairy to keep them safe for you.

And while you are at it don't rely on the state to run your business, teach you how to farm, subsidise you, protect you from the big bad market while you produce an indifferent or unwanted product or otherwise make sure you get a living wage for all those hours you put in.

It's not rocket science, it's responsibility.

Dawggone

+1. Good post Kowtow.

Government ain't the solution....

vincenzolorenzo

I was talking to a friend recently about the whole farm safety record and the huge numbers of fatalities and injuries compared to other industries. The basic question is why can the procedures, legislation and penalties which were applied to the construction industry not be applied to farming.

I know there is the whole family farm issue which is a unique aspect, but if all the construction safety regs were to be applied to farming the industry just would not be able to afford it. There simply isn't enough money in it to cover all the additional costs.

Which leads me to my question - is the policy of keeping food prices low for the good of society resulting in a roadblock to the application of safety legislation? If the full extent of safety in the workplace regs were applied to farming would it result in food prices rising to an unaffordable level?

The Letheram

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

I was talking to a friend recently about the whole farm safety record and the huge numbers of fatalities and injuries compared to other industries. The basic question is why can the procedures, legislation and penalties which were applied to the construction industry not be applied to farming.

I know there is the whole family farm issue which is a unique aspect, but if all the construction safety regs were to be applied to farming the industry just would not be able to afford it. There simply isn't enough money in it to cover all the additional costs.

Which leads me to my question - is the policy of keeping food prices low for the good of society resulting in a roadblock to the application of safety legislation? If the full extent of safety in the workplace regs were applied to farming would it result in food prices rising to an unaffordable level?

I had exactly identical thoughts today. It would be another nail in the coffin of farming for sure.

Copa Mundial

Pointless I think myself. The safest place is in the passenger seat, as long as you're not missing a door etc. Obviously when you'd be agitating slurry or that then there should be no young lads around, but to ban them completely is ridiculous.

keep going

If there was any rule to bring in its over 65s should not be allowed have a herd number or herd cattle, I think if you look at the stats over 65s make up a high proportion of the numbers

kowtow

keep going wrote: »

If there was any rule to bring in its over 65s should not be allowed have a herd number or herd cattle, I think if you look at the stats over 65s make up a high proportion of the numbers

Absolutely. If you look at the stats I suspect that you would instantly reduce the number of deaths every year by restricting older farmers from a list of prohibited tasks.

One simple change, a handful of lives saved next year.

So why not do that?

Zoo4m8

kowtow wrote: »

Absolutely. If you look at the stats I suspect that you would instantly reduce the number of deaths every year by restricting older farmers from a list of prohibited tasks.

One simple change, a handful of lives saved next year.

So why not do that?

For sure.. One simple change, a handful of lives saved every year.. Oh hang on a minute, we're not talking about seven year olds in cabs any more...

Sam Kade

keep going wrote: »

If there was any rule to bring in its over 65s should not be allowed have a herd number or herd cattle, I think if you look at the stats over 65s make up a high proportion of the numbers

My neighbours are almost 80 and still milking it's what keeps them going imagine if they were banned from doing that at 65.

kowtow

Sam Kade wrote: »

My neighbours are almost 80 and still milking it's what keeps them going imagine if they were banned from doing that at 65.

Quite.

And I am sure they are sensible, and safe.

But there is no question that a properly enforced ban on older farmers, or perhaps a limited "licence to farm" where they could perform certain tasks under careful supervision, maybe with a properly qualified supervisor, would immediately save some lives on our farms. Based on the statistics in recent years it would certainly save many more lives than the restriction on under 7 year olds in tractor cabs, even in a properly constructed seat.

So where is the support?

kowtow

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

Which leads me to my question - is the policy of keeping food prices low for the good of society resulting in a roadblock to the application of safety legislation?

Yes, most certainly.

The unintended effect of subsidy is to concentrate money further up the food chain than the primary producer... while making the producer wholly dependent on the processing chain (from which he is a price taker). In effect, he becomes a de facto employee rather than a free acting agent in the food economy.

We would never have had effective safety legislation on building sites if the onus had been on the workers themselves to pay for it and implement it.

Which suggests that the way this will actually go is to get the processor to ensure compliance on the farm... for which the farmers will demand, and receive, some limited compensation. All of which strengthens the hand of the processor.

Sam Kade

kowtow wrote: »

Quite.

And I am sure they are sensible, and safe.

But there is no question that a properly enforced ban on older farmers, or perhaps a limited "licence to farm" where they could perform certain tasks under careful supervision, maybe with a properly qualified supervisor, would immediately save some lives on our farms. Based on the statistics in recent years it would certainly save many more lives than the restriction on under 7 year olds in tractor cabs, even in a properly constructed seat.

So where is the support?

Maybe we should also ban dangerous drivers plenty of them out there and all ages, where do you draw the line?

Zoo4m8

kowtow wrote: »

Quite.

And I am sure they are sensible, and safe.

But there is no question that a properly enforced ban on older farmers, or perhaps a limited "licence to farm" where they could perform certain tasks under careful supervision, maybe with a properly qualified supervisor, would immediately save some lives on our farms. Based on the statistics in recent years it would certainly save many more lives than the restriction on under 7 year olds in tractor cabs, even in a properly constructed seat.

So where is the support?

I'm assuming this is a wind up...ban on older farmers? At what age is older? Older than you? 55? 65? 75?....careful supervision? With a qualified supervisor?
What the hell!....

Support for what? Banning 'old ' farmers who are capable of taking responsibility for their own actions or youngsters who aren't ?

td5man

Sam Kade wrote: »

My neighbours are almost 80 and still milking it's what keeps them going imagine if they were banned from doing that at 65.

My grandfather had a farm rented until it was sold when he was 90.
He walked 3-4 miles every day looking after his cattle, he died within 2 years of stopping farming.

FineFilly

I for one wont be following this ,have a good tractor with seat belt on passengers seat and safe experienced drivers,kids are often safer in the cab than down in the yard or field etc ,safer in the cab than under the loader,I have taught the kids to be extra safe and vigilant around machinery and animals,now in saying that I wouldn't ley them up on the old 168 ,cab in ***** and only 1 door,its about safety and teaching it

Fuxake

kowtow wrote: »

Absolutely. If you look at the stats I suspect that you would instantly reduce the number of deaths every year by restricting older farmers from a list of prohibited tasks.

One simple change, a handful of lives saved next year.

So why not do that?

Because the HSA is not interested in rational debate, it is interested in generating hysteria and being seen to "do something" in order to justify their existence and keep the well paid public sector jobs going in their plush fancy offices in Dublin. The reality is that the stats consistently show that there are far more farm deaths associated with over 65s than with children. There has been a number of very tragic cases involving children this year which the HSA is now exploiting to bring in nonsensical regulations. But where is the evidence? How many children have been killed or even injured in the cab of a tractor? The only evidence we have from this year's tragic child fatalities is that being left out of the cab is potentially dangerous.
As for older people, it's absoultely correct to say that they should be banned from farming once they hit 65 if you follow the simplistic "one fatality is one too many" logic that the HSA and other bureaucrats wheel out. But as already said here, there are many older farmers who, although at increased risk of injury or worse, are actually deriving huge benefit from working on through their later years. Ban all the over 65s and you reduce the farm fatality stats. Instead the over 65s rot away by the fireside, get less fit and more depressed and die instead from the loss of interest and exercise caused by premature retirement. Not to mention the increased hospitalisation inevitable from staying in bed, sitting by the fire and being unhealthy. But if you did that we'd have some other state quango getting involved wasting tax payers money trying to encourage all the retired farmers to take up walking, swimming and other exercise and lecturing them about spending too much time in the pub. Jeez these bureacrats make me weep!
I know two brothers whose combined age is 165 and they are a model of good health from spending every day following cattle, attending marts etc. Go figure...

whisky_galore

paddysdream wrote: »

Having children in the tractor where you can see them seemed like a good idea to me until a couple of years ago.
Young lad,5 at the time was off school and I decided to bring him with me to mow a field for a neighbour.1 hour job so no chance of him getting too bored.

Headed down to yard,raised mower to change blades and tractor in park(JD) with lift locked up and tractor off with key out.Plonked him into the cab with strict instructions not to touch anything.

As I was walking behind(thankfully) the mower with a box of blades saw him pushing quad and shuttle levers back and forwards and thought no more of it till saw tractor rolling forward(slight brow at front of shed) with child screaming.
Tractor rolled about 20 ft. till front wheel struck a block wall and flattened it and then stopped.
Young lad had pulled park lever into neutral.Honestly didn't think he could as its quiet stiff.
Unsure as to who got a bigger fright ,him or me.If the wheel hadn't struck the wall it would have travelled about 100m before meeting a mass concrete wall and at speed as the yard slopes a bit down to there.

To top it all had a HSA inspector call 2 days later as I was rebuilding the wall.Needless to say didn't think to mention it to him.

A near miss and a bad fright got there, I'll bet. Just goes to show that kids that age can't be trusted. An adult might have some grasp of the consequences of pushing that knob or pulling that lever, to them they're just playthings.

orm0nd

the biggest danger is leaving the child in the cab when the driver has to pop out to do something

most modern tractors have push button electric controls unlike in the past

unfortunately there have been multiple deaths & horrendous injuries as a result

foxy farmer

kowtow wrote: »

Yes, most certainly.

The unintended effect of subsidy is to concentrate money further up the food chain than the primary producer... while making the producer wholly dependent on the processing chain (from which he is a price taker). In effect, he becomes a de facto employee rather than a free acting agent in the food economy.

We would never have had effective safety legislation on building sites if the onus had been on the workers themselves to pay for it and implement it.

Which suggests that the way this will actually go is to get the processor to ensure compliance on the farm... for which the farmers will demand, and receive, some limited compensation. All of which strengthens the hand of the processor.

As regards your last paragraph its already here with the Bord Bia QA inspections. But my question regarding this is -How qualified are these inspectors to make judgement or give advice on farm safety issues? Getting farmers to put up signs won't stop accidents.
I work for a contractor during silage season and we get landed with the farmers kids in a few places. Granted the tractors are modern with passenger seat fitted with belts. One lot are definitely better off in the cab as they are like rabbits if left around the yard. That said if I have an accident with someone's kids in the cab it becomes my and the contractors responsibility. Don't see how this is going to be enforced though. Just throw the book at you if you have an accident I suppose. Insurance null and void or something similar.
I actually came across something on tractor safety lately and it wasnt referred to as a passenger seat but as a tutor seat.

kowtow

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

I'm assuming this is a wind up...ban on older farmers? At what age is older? Older than you? 55? 65? 75?....careful supervision? With a qualified supervisor?
What the hell!....

haha .. of course I am joking. I was just illustrating the futility and self-serving nature of one size fits all regulation. I can't understand why we increasingly seem to want to rely on others - specifically the state, quangos, processing chain etc. - to take the decisions and provide the support we are supposed to be able to take on our own account, and then blame the state, or big corporations etc. when we inevitably become powerless cogs in a bigger and bigger wheel. We are price takers for the most part because we become price takers through our actions.

No ban on age for me, I intend to die milking.

Something which my fourteen year old son inevitably points out with a gleam in his eye "can be arranged..."

frazzledhome

whisky_galore wrote: »

A near miss and a bad fright got there, I'll bet. Just goes to show that kids that age can't be trusted. An adult might have some grasp of the consequences of pushing that knob or pulling that lever, to them they're just playthings.

Goes to show the adult DIDN'T apply the handbrake, simple

frazzledhome

kowtow wrote: »

Yes, most certainly.

The unintended effect of subsidy is to concentrate money further up the food chain than the primary producer... while making the producer wholly dependent on the processing chain (from which he is a price taker). In effect, he becomes a de facto employee rather than a free acting agent in the food economy.

We would never have had effective safety legislation on building sites if the onus had been on the workers themselves to pay for it and implement it.

Which suggests that the way this will actually go is to get the processor to ensure compliance on the farm... for which the farmers will demand, and receive, some limited compensation. All of which strengthens the hand of the processor.

Most accurate description I've read.

Kovu

I know the farmyard should be treated as a workplace but if it joins onto the garden, how can you stop a child from exploring? We're told not to plonk them infront of a laptop or tv all day. If a child grows up in a farmhouse but not getting any experience in a famryard, how are they going to know about the dangers of it if one day they slip out from under a parents eye.

By the time I was six or seven I was roaming loose around our yard. But up until that age I'd had constant supervision and had learned the rules on respecting machinery and livestock. So my dad trusted me to not act like an idiot and do as he'd taught me. If I hadn't been allowed to do that, I'd have been a naive youngster determined to do everything I could without knowing repercussions of my actions.

But every farmyard is different and has different dangers and safety concerns. No government ruling can fit all. I honestly can't see how this rule is going to help much, as said above, surely the safest place for a child is right beside an adult that can keep an eye on them.
frazzledhome has the best idea I've seen so far, a supervised, educational safety talk three times a year.

I also say this having no kids, so take this post with a massive dose of salt :pac:

Zoo4m8

kowtow wrote: »

haha .. of course I am joking. I was just illustrating the futility and self-serving nature of one size fits all regulation. I can't understand why we increasingly seem to want to rely on others - specifically the state, quangos, processing chain etc. - to take the decisions and provide the support we are supposed to be able to take on our own account, and then blame the state, or big corporations etc. when we inevitably become powerless cogs in a bigger and bigger wheel. We are price takers for the most part because we become price takers through our actions.

No ban on age for me, I intend to die milking.

Something which my fourteen year old son inevitably points out with a gleam in his eye "can be arranged..."

Agree,mostly, but I don't think we want to rely on others, legislation for the most part is forced upon us.. Whether this proposed move makes any difference remains to be seen but as has been said somewhere else on the forum "stupid people are stupid" and some need saving from themselves.look at the reduction in road deaths after the introduction of penalty points, NCT, and stiffer drink driving laws.
As for being price takers, that's a subject for a whole new thread but isn't that the way it's always been long before the big processors etc and something that we accept for the most part as being part of our chosen career and that's becoming increasingly difficult to change.
I like to think I made a small effort to regain some little control, I resigned from Bord Bia scheme after an inspector read me the riot act for having the lock hanging on the medicine shed, he said a drunk wandering home at night could climb the electric gates and walk the 400 metre lane way to the yard looking for something to drink!...so now I've changed my whole system and just produce hoggets ewes that are sold to local men, and it's working far better..
Anyway that's wandering well away from the main point..my youngest is 30 (puts me dangerously close to the enforced retirement age ) and long gone but till the age of 14 till she discovered boys and rock music she couldn't be kept from the yard and spent a lot of time with me in the tractor on the passenger seat but I still think we need some method of getting people's attention and if it needs the big stick so be it...

kowtow

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

...an inspector read me the riot act for having the lock hanging on the medicine shed, he said a drunk wandering home at night could climb the electric gates and walk the 400 metre lane way to the yard looking for something to drink!

hahah.. reminds me of a time years ago in England when we used to have sheep, long before all the new regs, for some reason or another I left a car parked outside the cottage with a stack of (already loaded) dosing syringes and needles. Needless to say that was the night the car was nicked.

When the policeman came to take notes the next morning I felt duty bound to tell him about the contents of the glovebox. Even in those times I was pretty sure I was about to get a big telling off.

But I told him.

He gave me a big smile and said "So, sir, I'm to tell all the neighbouring stations that we're looking for the healthiest bunch of car thieves in the Cotswolds?"

Sam Kade

kowtow wrote: »

haha .. of course I am joking. I was just illustrating the futility and self-serving nature of one size fits all regulation. I can't understand why we increasingly seem to want to rely on others - specifically the state, quangos, processing chain etc. - to take the decisions and provide the support we are supposed to be able to take on our own account, and then blame the state, or big corporations etc. when we inevitably become powerless cogs in a bigger and bigger wheel. We are price takers for the most part because we become price takers through our actions.

No ban on age for me, I intend to die milking.

Something which my fourteen year old son inevitably points out with a gleam in his eye "can be arranged..."

You were yeah :mad: