This study assessed work-related and driver-related factors in fatigue among Finnish heavy vehicle drivers. 683 professional drivers responded to a questionnaire, 27.8% of whom reported often feeling fatigue during their work shifts. Of the respondents, 27.5% reported having momentarily fallen asleep at the wheel while driving during the past year. Almost half (46.8%) of the fatigued drivers estimated the reasons for momentarily falling asleep were work-related. Long working shifts and short sleeps significantly increased the risk of momentarily falling asleep at the wheel. The risk of fatigue was the highest for the drivers who were unable to choose the time of their breaks.

The aim of this study is to examine those occupational accidents at construction sites that are related to materials handling as compared with all reportable occupational accidents at construction sites. The main concern is to define the kinds of accidents that occur in materials handling. The data were gathered from two sources: a large Finnish construction company and the database of reports of serious occupational accidents (Sammio). One third of all the reported accidents in the studied construction company occurred during materials transfer and 36% of the absenteeism days resulted from these accidents. Materials handling thus caused more serious accidents than other work activities (t = -2.44, df = 351, p < 0.005). Minor accidents were mostly due to over-exertion whereas serious accidents were mostly falling from a height and injuries caused by falling and collapsing objects. The manual transfer of materials caused most of the materials transfer accidents in the company and mechanical transfer most of the serious materials handling accidents. Over-exertion can, therefore, be decreased by reducing manual materials handling. On the other hand, replacing manual transfers with mechanical transfers means that there arises a risk of serious accidents.Construction industry, occupational accident, manual materials handling, mechanical materials handling,

Implementing safety management (ISM Code) aims to promote a good safety culture in the maritime industry. However, although this has improved safety, it has also paradoxically increased bureaucracy and overlooked operative personnel. At the same time, safety science has undergone a paradigm shift from Safety-I, which is traditional and error based, to Safety-II, which focuses on the potential of the human element. To determine whether Safety-I is dominant in the prevailing culture, or whether any Safety-II ideas are emerging, we studied the current thinking and the prerequisites for improving maritime safety culture and safety management. We interviewed 17 operative employees and 12 safety and unit managers (n = 29), both individually and in groups, in eight Finnish maritime organisations representing the maritime system (shipping companies, authorities, vessel traffic service, association). We also analysed 21 inspection documents to capture practical safety defects. To the employees, safety culture meant openness and well-functioning, safe work. However, this was not always the case in practice. Safety management procedures were portrayed as mainly technical/ authority focused, and as neglecting the human element, such as the participation of operative personnel in safety improvements. We also found several factors that support improving maritime safety culture. The ISM code seems to have supported traditional methods of safety management (Safety-I), but not the creation of a positive safety culture, which the Safety-II paradigm has highlighted. System-wide safety improvement, participation of the operative personnel and open sharing of safety data were the areas in need of development. These were already being created in and among maritime organisations. To improve maritime safety culture in a concrete way and to achieve Safety-II in practice, we need a new focus and competence. Policy, procedures, and practical tools and models should use the human element as potential.

No abstract

This study showed that age was a more important factor in injury involvement than gender, tenure or mother tongue. However, age was closely related to experience in the company. Prevention measures in the companies should thus focus on novice employees.