A Demonstration Project in New York and Virginia: Retrofitting Cost-Effective Roll-over Protective Structures (CROPS) on Tractors

Abstract

Corresponding author: David L. Hard, 1095 Willowdale Road, MS 1900, Morgantown, WV 26505-2888 phone: 304-285-6068; dlh6@cdc.gov. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptThe NIOSH cost-effective roll-over protective structure (CROPS) demonstration project sought to determine whether three prototype roll-over protective structures (ROPS) designed to be retrofitted on Ford 8N, Ford 3000, Ford 4000, and Massey Ferguson 135 tractors could be installed in the field and whether they would be acceptable by the intended end users (farmers). There were a total of 50 CROPS demonstrators (25 in New York and 25 in Virginia), with 45 observers attending the New York CROPS demonstrations and 36 observers attending the Virginia CROPS demonstrations, for a total of 70 participants in New York and 61 in Virginia. The oldest retrofitted tractors were 77 to 62 years old, while the newest retrofitted tractors were 40 to 37 years old. The most frequently retrofitted tractor in the CROPS demonstration project was a Ford 3000 series tractor (n = 19; 38%), followed by Ford 4000 (n = 11; 22%), Massey Ferguson 135 (n = 11; 22%), and Ford 8N (n = 9; 18%). A major issue of CROPS retrofitting was the rear wheel fenders. The effort involved in disassembling the fenders (removing the old bolts was often faster by cutting them with a torch), modifying the fender mounting brackets, and then reinstalling the fenders with the CROPS generally required the most time. In addition, various other semipermanent equipment attachments, such as front-end loaders, required additional time and effort to fit with the CROPS. Demonstrators were asked to rank the reasons why they had not retrofitted their tractors with ROPS until they had enrolled in the CROPS demonstration program. ROPS "cost too much" was ranked as the primary reason for participants in both states (80% for New York and 88% for Virginia). The second highest ranked reasons were "ROPS wasn't available" for Virginia (80%) and "hassle to find ROPS" for New York (69%). The third highest ranked reasons were "not enough time to find ROPS" for New York (67%) and "hassle to find ROPS" for Virginia (79%). All demonstrators and observers indicated that they were glad to have participated in the CROPS project. KeywordsCost-effective roll-over protective structures (CROPS); Injury prevention; Roll-over protective structures (ROPS); Tractor safety U.S. agriculture has historically been in the top three industries for workplace deaths, with both a high rate and high number of fatalities according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AgFF) industry sector has the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of work-related deaths over the past three years: 27.9 deaths per 100,000 full-time equivalents (FTE) in 2010, 24.9/100,000 FTE in 2011, and 21.2/100,000 FTE in 2012. In addition, the AgFF sector ranked third in the total number of work-related deaths: 621 occupational deaths in 2010 , 566 in 2011 , and 475 in...

Safety Vision of Agricultural Tractors: An Engineering Perspective Based on Recent Studies (2009–2019)

“…Jenkins et al [130] surveyed motivations and barriers to the safe use of tractors among farmers. Accordingly, surveys were carried out also during specific demonstrations related to ROPS retrofitting [131,132]. Di Nocera et al [133] analyzed the tractor's operator attentional control, while Lleras et al [134] investigated the behavior of tractor operators in rollover-prone situations.…”

Retrofitting Agricultural Self-Propelled Machines with Roll-Over and Tip-Over Protective Structures

“…The results achieved by means of the two case studies described in the previous section show the reliability of the proposed procedure for the development of ad hoc protective structures of machinery that have been put on the market unprotected due to a lack of a safety normative reference. Although this problem is very diffused in the field of agricultural machinery, most studies in the literature focused on agricultural tractors focus both on the development of aftermarket ROPS structures [39][40][41] and the promotion of retrofitting programs [42][43][44], while scarce attention has been paid to other types of machinery [14].…”

Machinery Safety and Ergonomics: A Case Study Research to Augment Agricultural Tracklaying Tractors’ Safety and Usability

“…Moreover, this study allowed us to implement a procedure for the selection of a PAS for the FROPS that can also be used at a practical level to update already-in-use tractors, providing a feasible solution both from the technical and economical point of view, responding to the research needs outlined by several studies [46,47]. The results achieved, accomplish the findings of Caffaro et al [48], who pointed out the need to consider both the user and producer standpoint to augment the safety level of dangerous work equipment.…”