Machine Guarding

Posted by John Sedgewick - 10/12/09 at 10:12 am

Machine guarding has been a major concern for factory workers in America since the 1850s. At that time, large scale mills appeared along the rivers. The flowing water turned large waterwheels, which, through a series of leather belts and smaller wheels, drove long shafts at the ceiling level along the entire length of the mills. At each machine station, a belt driven by the ceiling shaft transmitted power down to the machine.  

These early mills used two basic forms of  guarding to protect workers. First, the ceiling shafts were considered  to be “guarded by location.” In other words, workers were isolated from the danger of entanglement by the simple fact that they could not reach the dangerous area.  Second, moving parts within reach of the workers were guarded by “fixed barrier guards”. In those situations, workers were physically restrained from reaching into nearby danger.

While these two basic approaches to guarding are still in use, today’s machine designers also have more sophisticated options. Electric eyes, body bars, and proximity sensing pads can all shut down equipment if a worker gets too close to a danger zone.  Interlocks can prevent machinery from starting up if all necessary guards are not in place. Warning signs are also considered to be part of a designer’s inventory of guarding choices.

Responsible employers do not expose workers to unnecessary risks by allowing them to work on unguarded machinery.

Never operate a machine unless all guards are in place, and never override interlocks. Read and understand your operator’s manual, look over all warning stickers, and independently assess all risks before you operate any machine.

Even workers who follow all safety rules can be injured by improperly guarded machinery.  If you or someone you know has been injured by entanglement in moving machinery, consult with a lawyer who specializes in product liability claims. 

Successful claims may be based on an argument that the barrier guard was flimsy and inadequate, that the machine designer relied upon a warning sticker when a barrier guard was necessary, or where the hazard should have been designed out of the machine entirely, eliminating any need for a guard or warning. 



This entry was posted on Thursday, December 10th, 2009 at 10:29 am and is filed under Work. The entry is tagged under You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.