Working on tractor with loader up...do you?

[Soundguy]

Hmm.. working without a rops equipped tractor doesn't appear on a warning sticker... working under an unsupported loader does... in fact.. the only rops warnings you see concern employees needing to have rops equipped tractors.. and NOT wearing a seatbelt if you don't have a rops/fops.

I'd wager there will be more accidents from 'normal use items like a lawnmower.. than there will be from no-rops equipped tractors.

Besides everyone knows that tractors without rops didn't become unsafe untill about 1985 (wink)

I'd also like to point out that you are compairing apples to oranges. You compair working 'with' a tractor to working 'on' it. IE.. a tractor with no rops setting in your driveway with it's oil being changed is no more or less dangerous to the mechanic changing the oil due to a presence or lack of a rops. Take that same tractor in a field or hillside plowing.. and then you will see some danger differences depending on the rops availability and terain.

Now.. with that same comparison criteria.. a mechanic working on a tractor with a supported laoder.. and one with an unsupported laoder. it is OBVIUOS that the bechanic working under the unsupported loader is in more danger than the one working under a supported loader.

Thus your argument as you presented it is flawed to the point that it does not present valid data for comparison... I'm not saying the point you were trying to illustrate was wrong.. just the comparison you used itself had logical fallacy type problems...

Soundguy

Renze, Your correct when you say that everyone need to decide how much risk they are willing to take. I'm sure we would all agree that many more of us will be injured or killed by operating a tractor with out ROPs than working on an unsupported loader. A gold star for you for not calling people names that are without question taking much more risk than you.

May the force be with you,

mwark

 

[Renze]

I'm not saying the point you were trying to illustrate was wrong.. just the comparison you used itself had logical fallacy type problems...

This very same point i was trying to make in the $.59ct O-ring debate...

 

[mwark]

Hmm.. working without a rops equipped tractor doesn't appear on a warning sticker... working under an unsupported loader does... in fact.. the only rops warnings you see concern employees needing to have rops equipped tractors.. and NOT wearing a seatbelt if you don't have a rops/fops.

I'd wager there will be more accidents from 'normal use items like a lawnmower.. than there will be from no-rops equipped tractors.

Besides everyone knows that tractors without rops didn't become unsafe untill about 1985 (wink)

I'd also like to point out that you are compairing apples to oranges. You compair working 'with' a tractor to working 'on' it. IE.. a tractor with no rops setting in your driveway with it's oil being changed is no more or less dangerous to the mechanic changing the oil due to a presence or lack of a rops. Take that same tractor in a field or hillside plowing.. and then you will see some danger differences depending on the rops availability and terain.

Now.. with that same comparison criteria.. a mechanic working on a tractor with a supported laoder.. and one with an unsupported laoder. it is OBVIUOS that the bechanic working under the unsupported loader is in more danger than the one working under a supported loader.

Thus your argument as you presented it is flawed to the point that it does not present valid data for comparison... I'm not saying the point you were trying to illustrate was wrong.. just the comparison you used itself had logical fallacy type problems...

Soundguy

The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. wayne-sanderson@uiowa.edu
Agriculture remains one of the most hazardous industries in the U.S., with tractor overturns producing the greatest number of agricultural machinery-related fatalities. Rollover protective structures (ROPS) and seatbelts effectively reduce tractor overturn deaths. However, a large proportion of tractors in use in American agriculture are older tractors without ROPS and seatbelts. This article describes the tractor-related responses from participants in a population-based study conducted in Keokuk County, Iowa. This study was designed to measure rural and agricultural adverse health and injury outcomes and their respective risk factors. Questionnaires were partially developed from well-documented national surveys. Questions about agricultural machinery use, presence of safety equipment on the machinery, work practices, and attitudes about farm safety were included. Study participants on farms who owned tractors had an average of 3.1 tractors with an average age of 27 years. Only 39% of the 665 tractors had ROPS. Tractor age was associated with the presence of ROPS; 84% of tractors manufactured after 1984 were ROPS-equipped, whereas only 3% of tractors manufactured before 1960 were ROPS-equipped. ROPS-equipped tractors were significantly more common on larger farms and households with higher income. Only 4% of the farmers reported that their tractors had seatbelts and they wore them when operating their tractors. The results of this study support the findings of other studies, which indicate that many older tractors without ROPS and seatbelts remain in use in American agriculture. Until a dramatic reduction in the number of tractors in the U.S. operated without ROPS and seatbelts is achieved, the annual incidence of 120 to 130 deaths associated with tractor overturns will persist.
PMID: 16536175 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Cornell University Agricultural Health and Safety Program, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA. emh14@cornell.edu

Tractor overturns are the leading cause of all tractor- and machinery-related fatalities in the agricultural industry. A rollover protective structure (ROPS) on a tractor is the most effective mechanism for protecting a tractor operator's life during a tractor overturn incident. Unfortunately, about half of all tractors presently in operation in the U.S. do not have a ROPS. Retrofitting such tractors with ROPS could result in an as much as a 99% reduction in fatalities associated with tractor overturns. The overall aim of this study was to determine the level of financial incentive required to motivate the maximum number of farmers to install ROPS on non-ROPS equipped tractors and thus affect the greatest level of change within the farming community. This was done by offering a range of subsidy levels by percentage and not by specific dollar amounts to a random sampling of New York farms. A secondary goal was to find any hidden problems associated with retrofitting. Study results showed that cost was not the only factor affecting farmers' reluctance to retrofit. A perceived and actual "hassle factor" was found to be endemic to the retrofitting process and a significant obstacle to farmers' willingness to retrofit, no matter the level of financial subsidy.
PMID: 15782890 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

CHECKMATE!

 

[gemini5362]

Ok, nice comments about rops and it is a nice reminder to all of us about how we need to have a rops on our tractors and use seat belts. I do believe that in the end if you are killed when your loader falls on you because it is not supported or if you are killed because you rolled your tractor over and it did not have rops or you did not have your seat belt on, either way you are still dead. We all should review the way we operate or operate on our vehicles and decide what is dangerous to us and what risks we ourselves are willing to take. If you are new to tractors while you are learning enough information to make an informed decision on risks I would recommend you follow the very sound advice that has been given here. 1. support your loader if you are going to be working under it. 2. Make sure you have a rops. If it is an older tractor check with a dealership. I know kubota has a program where you pay the dealer cost of the ROPS and they install it for free. I assume that some of the other tractor manufacturers might have the same program. 3. If you have ROPS make sure you wear the seatbelt. I do not believe too many people ever got hurt from being too careful.

 

[Soundguy]

Hmmm.. you post alot.. but don't say much.

Checkmate? hardly... you didn't even address my point... I'll reiterate.

tractor 1, no rops, setting in driveway with oil being changed.

tractor 2, setting in driveway, with rops, oil being changed.

person changing the oil is in no more or less danger with respect to the presence or absence of rops on the 2 machines he is changing the oil on.

Tractor 3, loader up, supported, mechaninc working under loader bucket.

Tractor 4, loader up, unsuported, mechanic working under loader bucket.

In this comparison, the mechanic is in more danger while being under the unsuported loader.

Anything more than a 1-2 word reply or an attempt to change the subject of disscussion away from loaders, to something like rops, ? or are red herrings the only thing ya brought to the table?

By the way.. kudos on the red herring. Looking at the logistics of arguments, Deflecting and changing the subject to one more easilly proven ( or disproven, as the case may be or not germain) is among the top logical argumentitive falacies employed by those who have problems actually sticking to and debating the topical issue. IE.. we are discussing the safety risks of working under a loader.. and you are changine the subject to rops issues..

For anyone wanting to read up on what a red herring is.. check here:

Fallacy: Red Herring

or can be researched as:

Ignoratio elenchi , irrelevant conclusion , irrelevant thesis

Ignoratio elenchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should be noted that I don't disagree that a tractor not equipped with a rops is more dangerous that one that is.. however.. it is a differnt discussion altogether...and not directly germain in dealing with our discussion of whethere it is safe or unsafe to be working under an unsuported loader..... thus my reference to this definition : "Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support"

Soundguy

CHECKMATE!

 

[Redbug]

Pretty good stuff...I did not know what a red herring was till today! Very perseptive Soundguy. Hey...I do that all the time at work! Not to mention that this post is a red herring!

Checkmate...errr toupee...I mean touche'.

 

[mwark]

Your definition of “red herring” is correct its use in this case however is not. I have never intended to divert attention from the original issue. I have repeatedly stated that I always support my FEL.

For some reason my point keeps getting lost on you and this probably my own fault. My comments on my last post were admittedly brief. I thought that my point would be obvious. I stand corrected. I’ll give this one last try.

I am simply making an observation and what I am trying to point out does not make what you have written untrue.

This is the upshot of your criticism regarding Renze’s post.

I'm sorry.. It's not opinion.. its risk assessment.. each individual is free to make their own choices. i don't live in fear of my laoder bucket falling on me.. why? cause i prop it up with a stout piece of timber.. one less thing on my mind. besides.. i have a family to support. it would be the ultimate act of selfishness to throw safety to the wind and do things the most dangerous way I could.. and them leave my family without my financial support, help, or companionship. In short.. think about others.. not just yourself.. ( others includes the 14 year old kid reading this thread that is going to 'help' his dad by doing something with the laoder before dad gets home.. as a 'suprise'.. and just when he walks under the bucket, the dog jump into the tractor seat after a butterfly, dropping the laoder bucket, trapping and slowly crushing / killing the 14 year old kid, for his family to find later.. all because he rad that it was OK to do this .. and that if you dind't.. you were scared...) See where this is going?

Soundguy

That was well written a little sanctimonious but very understandable.
It is clear that you feel unsafe practices should be pointed out and that you believe the mere posting of any unsafe practice makes all or us less safe.

You repeat your position here.

I still however think R is practicing some unsafe behavior.. then compounding it by posting it as it it is safe.. While he may or may not be able to make that personal determination.. I fear there may be others that lack that uh.. good common sense and when reading those comments may think it's perfectly fine to do as R does.. I think that's the real issue being discussed here.. not what R does to himself. but what his 'advice' may do to others...

have a safe one.

Soundguy

You also wrote this.

MOST of my stuff is older...

Only my 'new' stuff has rops. My Nh 7610s has a rops, and I DO wear a seatbelt even if I'm only moving it 3 feet. My farm CUV has a rops.. I wear a seatbelt in it too.

no seatbelts on the non rops 'oldies' i drive.

Soundguy

Here‘s were my observation comes in.
You are cavalierly admitting to and posting about a practice that has been proven to be the most dangerous in all of agricultural. More people are killed by tractors that lack ROP than all other agricultural accidents combined.

In my opinion your two posts are intellectually dishonest. It is important for you to understand that my observation is not in conflict with your assertions regarding Renze nor am I attempting divert attention from the original issue. (Not a red hearing) And I agree that you have right to say almost anything that you want.

It’s like Al Gore telling us to use less energy while flying around in a private jet. He has a right to say it and we have a right to point out his hypocrisy. The two points of view are not mutually exclusive, they can both be true.

I did find this interesting. Renze never said that anyone should follow his lead or that what he was doing was safe anyone else. But you did post this.

I'd wager there will be more accidents from 'normal use items like a lawnmower.. than there will be from no-rops equipped tractors.

Besides everyone knows that tractors without rops didn't become unsafe untill about 1985 (wink)


Soundguy

What does the (wink) mean? Are we to infer that you think that ROP are some how unnecessary or superfluous? I hope not; what if a 14 year old were to see that and think that you were implying that is safe to operate a tractor with no ROP…
I'm sure the wink means something altogether different.

Digressing, "more accidents from 'normal use items like a lawnmower.. than there will be from no-rops equipped tractors." this is a good example of the red herring. Kudos to me for picking that one out.

Let me summarize. We do not appear to be in disagreement on the issues of safety, other than the possible (wink) meaning.
I believe that being critical of a member’s behavior when my own behavior is as bad or worse, makes me a hypocrite whether my behavior is posted or not. I try and avoid that pitfall if at all possible. That's just me it need not apply to you.

I have a feeling that the only way this is ever going to end is for me to make this my final comment regarding this thread and give you the last word.

Be safe,

mwark

 

[Egon]

Some people like salt herrings; others could care less about them.

I'm too old for a wink!

Want to work under an hydraulically supported mechanism please do so before the gene pool is extenuated.

 

[Defective]

I don't like herring at all...

But then, I don't live anywhere near the coast.

 

[Soundguy]

Sanctimonious.. I'll take.. probably true.. no argument there.

The issue with t he tractors with no rops comes form the point that up untill a certain time period.. there was no other option and even now.. many tractor simply have no option for a retrofit. the machine is as 'safe' as it is going to get.... the tractor was made, as desgined by the manufacturer with no rops. I'm using it as it was designed, in accordance to the safety guidelines in the manual.... The unsupported loader?? well... I think we all agree.. at least here in the liability ridden US.. there are probably safety warning about working under an unsuported loader... and if yuo work under it unsuported.. it is not as 'safe' as it could be.. IE.. you can make it safer.. by supporting it.

the wink.. as i said before.. up until a certain period .. rops weren't required for new sales.. or for employee use.. etc ( now they are ). So NO.. I was not saying that they aren't needed. If i ever run across rops they are affordable for my tractors that can be retrofitted.. I'll definately pick them up.

As we speak.. i think i have found a set at auction for my ford 5000.. will know on the 13'th if I can get them.

At this point.. I think we are uh.. proabbaly at least seeing eye to eye.. if not.. mostly in agree ment.. I think.. ??

Soundguy

a little sanctimonious but very understandable.

Here‘s were my observation comes in.
You are cavalierly admitting to and posting about a practice that has been proven to be the most dangerous in all of agricultural. More people are killed by tractors that lack ROP than all other agricultural accidents combined.

In my opinion your two posts are intellectually dishonest. It is important for



I did find this interesting. Renze never said that anyone should follow his lead or that what he was doing was safe anyone else.


What does the (wink) mean? Are we to infer that you think that ROP are some how unnecessary or superfluous? Be safe,

mwark