Safe Access Platforms for Tractors A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by Lesley Day George Rechnitzer January 2005 RIRDC Publication No 04/180 RIRDC Project No UMO-29A

© 2005 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 089 9 ISSN 1440-6845 ‘Safe Access Platforms for Tractors Publication No. 04/180 Project No. UMO-29A The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable industries. The information should not be relied upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Specialist and/or appropriate legal advice should be obtained before any action or decision is taken on the basis of any material in this document. The Commonwealth of Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the authors or contributors do not assume liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from any person's use or reliance upon the content of this document. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquires concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186. Researcher Contact Details Dr Lesley Day Accident Research Centre PO Box 70A Monash University VIC 3800 Phone: 03 9950 1811 Fax: 03 9905 1809 Email: lesley.day@general.monash.edu.au In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4819 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in January 2005 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

ii

Foreword Tractors account for approximately 15% of work-related fatalities among those employed in agriculture in Australia, which is an average of 22 deaths per year. Historically, roll-over events have comprised the majority of tractor fatalities. However, the proportion of deaths and serious injuries due to tractor roll-over events is likely to decrease as the retrofitting of tractor roll-over protective structures becomes more widespread. Following roll-overs, run-over events comprise the next largest proportion of tractor fatalities. Development and evaluation of appropriate interventions for tractor run-over death and injury has lagged behind that for roll-over events, possibly because run-over events are not homogenous and a range of interventions are likely to be required. Mounting and dismounting a tractor has been identified as a common antecedent to tractor run-over events. In response to the apparent risks associated with mounting and dismounting older tractors, the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety produced a guidance note for the construction of safe access platforms for tractors, the design of which addresses a number of the factors found to be associated with run-over events. This guidance note has been used by two farm safety action groups in Victoria to fit a number of tractors with safe access platforms. This report outlines the results of an evaluation of the uptake and implementation of this initiative. The evaluation focuses on the operational aspects of the retro-fitted tractors, and the design aspects of the platforms themselves. The benefits and dis-benefits of platform fitment are identified, and features of the fitted platforms are compared with those of the access points on new tractors. This project was funded by Joint Venture in Farm Health and Safety, which is supported by R&D corporations – Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), Australian Wool Innovation (AWI), Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC), Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC), Dairy Australia and Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL). This report, a new addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1,200 research publications, forms part of our Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems R&D program, which aims to enhance human capital and facilitate innovation in rural industries and communities. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.htm

purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Tony Byrne Acting Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii

Acknowledgements We are very grateful to Jill Tucker and Graeme Prince, the respective leaders of the Wellington and Colac Farm Safety Action Groups for their assistance with the field work for this project. They gave generously of their time to contact and recruit potential participants. We are also grateful to the participating farmers for their time, provision of access to their tractors, and for their hospitality during our site visits. The engineers, Norm Johnston (Longford Mechanical Engineering), Mark Blacket (Birregurra Engineering) and Greg Jenkins (Coweld Engineering), were also willing participants in this research. Geoff McDonald (Geoff McDonald and Associates Pty Ltd) assisted with the estimation of reduction in potential damage and provided critical comment on this report. The Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety kindly gave permission for reproduction of the safe tractor assess platform guidance note.

Abbreviations ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ACAHS Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety EVAO Estimated value of agricultural outputs ILO International Labour Organisation OHS Occupational Health and Safety RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation ROPS Roll Over Protective Structure NOHSC National Occupational Health and Safety Commission OHS Occupational Health and Safety

iv

Contents Foreword iii Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations v Executive Summary vii

1. Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 2

2. Chapter Two: Methodology 2.1 Overall approach 3 2.2 Study participants 3 2.3 Data collection instruments 3 2.4 Data collection and management 3 2.5 Data analysis 4

3. Chapter Three: Detailed Results 3.1 Participant profile 5 3.2 Tractor profile 5 3.3 Platform fitment processes 6 3.4 Costs of fitment 6 3.5 Influence of platform fitment on tractor operations 7 3.6 Operational advantages and disadvantages 7 3.7 Design specifications of retro-fitted platforms 8

3.8 Impact on access and injury damage reduction 14 3.9 Access on new tractors 17

4. Chapter Four: Discussion of Results 4.1 Fitment process 24

4.2 Cost 24 4.3 Tractor operations 24 4.4 Design specifications 24 4.5 Other aspects of run-over prevention 25 4.6 Comparison with new tractors 25 4.7 Achievement of study objectives 26

5. Chapter Five: Implications 27

6. Chapter Six: Recommendations 28

7. References 29

8. Appendix 1: Safe tractor access platform guidance note 30

9. Appendix 2: Semi-structured farmer interview 39

10. Appendix 3: Tractor inspection protocol 44

11. Appendix 4: Safe access platforms on retro-fitted tractors 49

12. Appendix 5: Access on new tractors 60

v

Executive Summary Introduction Tractors account for approximately 15% of work related fatalities among those employed in agriculture in Australia, which is an average of 22 deaths per year. Historically, roll-over events have comprised the large majority of tractor fatalities. However, the proportion of deaths and serious injuries due to tractor roll-over events is likely to decrease as the retrofitting of tractor roll-over protective structures becomes more widespread. Following roll-overs, run-over events comprise the next largest proportion of tractor fatalities. Development and evaluation of appropriate interventions for tractor run-over death and injury has lagged behind that for roll-over events, possibly because run-over events are not homogenous and a range of interventions are likely to be required. Mounting and dismounting a tractor has been identified as a common antecedent to tractor run-over events. In response to the apparent risks associated with mounting and dismounting older tractors, the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety produced a guidance note for the construction of safe access platforms for tractors, the design of which addresses a number of the factors found to be associated with run-over events. This guidance note has been used in Victoria by the Wellington and Colac Farm Safety Action Groups to retro-fit tractors with safe access platforms. We undertook an evaluation of the uptake and implementation of this initiative. The evaluation focussed on the operational aspects of the retro-fitted tractors, and the design aspects of the platforms themselves. The project objectives were to:

· Explore the immediate benefits and dis-benefits of the platforms identified by tractor users

· Assess the design benefits and dis-benefits of the platforms installed · Compare the design features of the platforms fitted with those of new tractors

The main outcomes are:

· A short report, outlining the results reported against the project objectives · Marketing information, such as benefits identified by farmers and cost to farmers, for

use in further promotion · Early identification and therefore potential remediation of any serious dis-benefits

identified Methods A combination of qualitative methods and engineering-based inspections was used to (1) gather information from 10 farmers regarding benefits and dis-benefits of fitment and (2) assess the construction and fitment of the platforms. The farmers were recruited via the farm safety action group leaders. Data were collected on the participant’s property using a semi-structured interview protocol and an engineering based tractor inspection protocol. The features of the 10 access platforms were reviewed and an estimation made of the percentage reduction in potential damage achieved, where damage was defined as death or incapacitating injury. The average total cost per tractor was derived by converting the average farmer hours to a dollar term using standard wage costs and adding this to the material costs and engineer charges. Inspections were also conducted for comparison on seven new tractors readily available at farm machinery dealers.

vi

Results Participants and process Participating farmers were generally very experienced. The terrain of the properties visited varied from flat to hilly, and the commodities produced reflected those typical of the two regions. The average age of the tractors fitted was 23.7 years (range 7-41 years). The two farm safety action groups utilised a different approach to platform fitment. Group A opted for a workshop approach involving an engineer and the farmers, which also provided the opportunity for discussion of other safety issues. Group B opted for fitment contracted to a local engineering workshop. The overall high quality construction of the retro-fitted platforms reflected the expertise of the engineers involved. Cost The average cost of fitment was $185 for Group A, with the average cost per tractor for this group recently increasing to $310 per tractor. The average cost for Group B was $446. With farmer time also taken into account, the average cost per tractor was $400 for Group A and $490 for Group B. Operational considerations All farmers identified improved safety as an advantage, and six of the ten farmers reported that the tractors were easier to get on and off. This was the aspect that most impressed the farmers who reported that they had not anticipated the extent to which access would be improved. Platform fitment had little effect on both the amount of time the tractors were used, or the tasks for which they were used. Few operational disadvantages were reported. When specifically asked, five farmers reported it could be tempting to carry passengers on the retro-fitted platforms. However, one of these farmers reported that this practice would occur regardless of platform fitment. Design of retro-fitted platforms The guidelines make recommendations with respect to step dimensions, positioning and materials, handrails, protection from the rear tyre and attachment of the platform. Step dimension recommendations overall were not closely followed, particularly with respect to step height and the step rise and tread depth on those tractors with more than one step. The positioning of the bottom step in relation to the outside edge of the rear wheel, a key criteria, was satisfactory for five tractors. Adequate protection from the rear tyre, another key criteria, was provided on five tractors. Recommended material for the steps had been used for all steps on five of the tractors, and the bottom step of an additional three tractors. Non-slip nosing and contrast edging were absent from most of the tractors. Handrail recommendations were generally well met. The placement of the upright portion of the front hand rail could have been improved on four tractors. The space between the front handrail and the platform was filled in with mesh on six tractors. Recommendations for the attachment and bracing of the access platforms, underframe clearance , and access to service points were well met. Attachment of the handrails was adequate with the exception of one tractor, where it appeared that the front handrail had been welded onto the roll-over protective structure frame, potentially compromising the structural integrity of the frame. The possibility of access on the opposite side had been removed as recommended in three of the tractors. Access had unquestionably been improved on each tractor, compared with that available prior to fitment. The estimated reduction in potential death and serious injury ranged from 30-40% to 90-95%. Eight tractors achieved a reduction greater than 75%. Comparison with new tractors Six of the seven new tractors inspected were cabined tractors. Step height, rise and tread depth dimensions were unsatisfactory on all the new tractors. The positioning of the bottom step in relation

vii

to the outside edge of the rear wheel was satisfactory on four of the seven tractors. All the new tractors used non-slip materials for the steps, however, on most tractors this did not extend to the outer edges of the steps, increasing the risk of slipping particularly with higher step heights. A common observation on the new cabined tractors was the awkwardness of exiting forwards, as step placement and dimensions encouraged placing the foot diagonally across the step. None of the new tractors had a handrail which fully defined the front of the access path, although this path was partly defined by the handrail on four tractors. The front handrail met the recommended diameter requirement on one new tractor. All cabined tractors had handrails on the inside of the door which provided a rear handrail for access. There was no guarding of the rear tyre on the un-cabined tractor, and very little guarding of the rear tyre, either from the mudguard or the door, on the cabined tractors. Discussion Overview This initial implementation of safe tractor access platform retro-fitment has proved to be relatively successful. The step/platform factors associated with decreasing the risk of a fall include the step height and dimensions, handrails, non-slip materials, and lips on step edges. Step dimensions, lip edges, and handrails generally met the specifications. Greater attention to non-slip materials for steps and step nosing, and to step height, would further enhance platform performance. The step/platform factors associated with decreasing the risk of a run-over should the operator fall from a moving tractor include the positioning of the outer edge of the bottom step, and the guarding of the rear wheel. The key criteria for positioning the bottom was met by only half the tractors. Further, the rear wheel was adequately guarded on only half of the tractors. Closer attention to these two specifications would have increased the estimated potential damage reduction of some retro-fitted tractors. Any possibility of increased passenger carriage as a result of the retro-fitted platforms may be at least partially offset by the probable decrease in run-over risk, should a passenger fall from a platform or steps which meets the key criteria of extending level with the outer edge of the rear wheel. Reduction of the risk of falling and of the risk of a run-over in the event of a fall are two strategies for the reduction of run-over events. Since ineffective park brakes also play a role in run-over events, regular testing and maintenance of the park brake is an advisable adjunct to platform fitment. Further, technical advances increase automatic protection for tractor operators from run-over events would also contribute to future reductions as the tractor park is replaced with newer models. The retro-fitted tractors performed at about the same level or better than the new tractors on step height and dimensions, rear tyre guarding, extension of bottom step to outer edge of the rear wheel, and front handrails which defined the access path. The impact of the dis-benefits of access design on the new tractors may be tempered by other features and systems which reduce the risk of a run-over, if these are adequately maintained. Implications This strategy has the potential to significantly reduce the risk of tractor run-over events if adherence to the key criteria can be achieved, to also reduce the physical work demand of frequent mounting and dismounting tractors. Platform retro-fitment could be considered to be current best practice in the management of tractor run-over risk, and mechanisms for promoting, encouraging and facilitating

viii

uptake may need to be considered by the relevant organizations. This study has implications also for the design of new tractors. Recommendations

· Safe tractor access platforms should be widely promoted, and include displays of retro-fitted tractors.

· Promotional material should emphasize ease of access, reduced physical demand, reduction of run-over risk and the relatively low cost.

· Farmers and engineers should be provided with guidance on the critical characteristics of the platforms (bottom step extending to edge of rear wheel, and adequate guarding of rear wheel).

· Attention should also be drawn to ensuring that no parts are welded onto the roll-over protective structure.

· Mechanisms to encourage park brake testing and repair at the time of platform retro-fitment should be considered.

· Farmers should receive written advice regarding use of the tractor following fitment, including advice against the carriage of passengers.

· A requirement for fitting a no-passenger decal should be considered. · Processes for retro-fitment may best be designed or selected at regional or local levels

so the local needs can be taken into account. · A central mechanism for sharing of platform designs among farmers and engineers

should be developed. · Currently available non-slip materials should be reviewed and tested for suitability in

construction of safe tractor access platforms. · New un-cabined tractors which do no meet guidelines for safe access may need to be

retro-fitted prior to purchase. · The issue of safe access on tractors with cabins should be further examined, before

recommendations can be made.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background Currently in Australia, the agricultural sector has the second largest number of work-related deaths after transport and storage and the fifth highest occupational death rate after forestry and logging, fishing and hunting, mining and transport (NOHSC, 1999). The costs of injury and illness in the agricultural sector is estimated to be between $0.52 and $1.29 billion annually Australia-wide, with almost 1.7 million working days lost over a twelve-month period as a result (Fragar & Franklin, 1999). The cost of injury does not stop here. To these figures must be added the costs associated with replacement labour, reduced productivity, and for litigation at common (Fragar & Franklin, 1999). In recognition of the impact of injury sustained on farms, the issue has been identified as a priority at national, state and local levels. Tractors account for approximately 15% of work related fatalities among those employed in agriculture in Australia, which is an average of 22 deaths per year (Franklin et al, 2000). Historically, roll-over events have comprised the large majority of tractor fatalities. For the period 1985-1990, roll-over events accounted for 47% of tractor deaths in NSW and Queensland combined (Clarke & Coleman, 1995), and 66% in Victoria (Day, 1999). Following roll-overs, run-over events comprise the next largest proportion of tractor fatalities in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia (Myers et al., 1998; Brison et al., 1998; Langley et al., 1997; Clarke and Coleman, 1995; Day 1999). In some areas, run-over events now account for a greater proportion of tractor related deaths than rollovers. In Victoria, run-overs accounted for 27% of tractor fatalities in 1989-90, increasing to 47% in 1997-2000 (Lough & Day, 2001; Eric Young, personal communication). In a comprehensive retrospective study of work-related fatalities from 1989 to 1992 in Australia, a total of 144 tractor related fatalities were identified (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 2000). The study included adults and children, workers and by-standers to work. Fifty-four of the tractor-related deaths (37.5%) occurred in run-over events. Twenty-four people, 12 of whom were passengers, fell from a tractor and were subsequently run-over by either the tractor or attached machinery. Cabin doors accidentally coming open and faulty brakes have been noted in these events. Twelve people were run-over by a “parked” tractor. In these incidents, operators were typically engaged in maintenance or handling attachments to the tractor while the engine is running. Accidentally knocking the tractor into gear, and a failed or inadequately secured hand brake also featured. Seven people, mostly children, were run-over as pedestrians. Six people were run-over while starting a tractor from the ground and five people were run-over while trying to mount a moving tractor mostly in an attempt to “catch” a tractor which had started to roll (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 2000). Development and evaluation of appropriate interventions for tractor run-over death and injury has lagged behind that for roll-over events, possibly because run-over events are not homogenous, as can be seen from the outline above, and a range of interventions are likely to be required. There appears to be considerable scope for technological solutions to some aspects of the run-over problem. Deadman controls, as available on other kinds of mobile equipment, have been trialed and found unsatisfactory by some authors (Buchele, 1994). However, the development of a mechanism to detect the operator getting on or off the tractor which then stops tractor motion is technically feasible. Some systems providing a degree of automatic protection are now appearing on new tractor models. Most tractors have a neutral start switch, and some tractors also require clutch depression, and less commonly, the operator to be in the seat before the tractor will start.

2

Design and construction of a running board prototype has been undertaken in Iowa (Buchele, 1994). This running board has been designed to guard the pinch points located in the space between the front and rear tyres and to provide stairway steps for mounting, thereby preventing tractor operators being caught under the wheels should they fall during mounting and dismounting. This running board strategy does not appear to have been systematically implemented or evaluated. In response to the apparent risks associated with mounting and dismounting older tractors, the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety produced a guidance note for the construction of safe access platforms for tractors (Appendix 1). The safe access platform is intended to enable the operator to mount and dismount the tractor without stepping directly in front of the rear wheels. In addition, the platform is meant to make the access area less cluttered, slip resistant, provide hand holds, and prevent the operator from standing on the ground while the tractor is started. The platform design therefore addresses a number of the factors found to be associated with run-over events. This guidance note has been used in Victoria by the Wellington and Colac Farm Safety Action Groups to retro-fit tractors with safe access platforms. We undertook an evaluation of the uptake and implementation of this initiative. The evaluation focussed on the operational aspects of the retro-fitted tractors, and the design aspects of the platforms themselves. 1.2 Objectives The project objectives were to:

1. Explore the immediate benefits and dis-benefits of the platforms identified by tractor users 2. Assess the design benefits and dis-benefits of the platforms installed 3. Compare the design features of the platforms fitted with those of new tractors

The main outcomes are:

1. A short report, outlining the results reported against the project objectives 2. Marketing information, such as benefits identified by farmers and cost to farmers, for use in

further promotion 3. Early identification and therefore potential remediation of any serious dis-benefits identified

3

Chapter 2: Methodology 2.1 Overall approach A combination of qualitative methods and engineering-based inspections was used to (1) gather information from farmers regarding benefits and dis-benefits of fitment and (2) assess the construction and fitment of the platforms. 2.2 Study participants At the time of study commencement at least 18 farmers from two Victorian farm safety action groups (FSAG) had fitted platforms. Following approval from the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research involving Humans, the FSAG leader contacted potential participants to ascertain willingness to participate in the study. After the FSAG leader passed on the list of farm owners interested in participating in the study, 5 farmers from each group were randomly selected and invited to participate, with 100% response rate. A plain language statement and consent form was sent to these farm owners. The potential participants were then contacted by telephone when they had an opportunity to ask questions, prior to making an appointment for the interview and inspection. 2.3 Data collection instruments A semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix 2) was developed to gather the following information: amount of time required for participation and fitment, costs, tractor operations before and after fitment of the platform, and any benefits or dis-benefits experienced since fitment. An engineering based tractor inspection protocol (Appendix 3) was developed from the guidelines published by the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety. The protocol included height and placement of the bottom step, rise and tread depth of the steps, presence and appropriateness of the hand rail, integrity of the attachment points, and continued access to service points. 2.4 Data collection and management Interviews and inspections were conducted on the tractor owner’s property. Additionally, photographs were taken, with the tractor owner’s permission, and approval to conduct the inspection of the tractor was sought and obtained from all 10 farmers. Participants were given advice on any problems with the access platforms that were identified, and the potential consequences of those problems. Similar inspections of the access points were conducted on seven new tractors readily available at farm machinery dealers in south west and south east Victoria. All the new tractors, except one had cabins. The left hand side access only was inspected and reported, as it was noted that both sides were very similar. All tractors (retrofitted and new) were assessed with the wheels at the current track setting.

4

2.5 Data analysis

Quantitative data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.0. The qualitative data gathered from the interviews was summarised and analysed for themes. The average total cost per tractor was derived by converting the average farmer hours to a dollar term using standard wage costs ($14.70 per hour for skilled agricultural workers, ABS 2000), and adding this to the material costs and engineer charges.

In addition, the features of the 10 access platforms were reviewed and an estimation made of the percentage reduction in potential damage achieved, where damage was defined as death or incapacitating injury. The estimation was made by taking into account the likely reduction in the risk of a fall and the likely reduction in injury severity should a fall occur. Mr Geoff McDonald, a leading safety engineer involved in the development of the guidance note, took part in this review.

5

Chapter 3: Detailed Results 3.1 Participant profile Participating farmers were generally very experienced. Seven farmers had been farming for 20 years or more, five of whom had been farming for more than 30 years. The remaining three had been farming for between 5 and 14 years. The activities of the two farm safety action groups are centred around Colac in the south-west of Victoria, and Sale in the south-east. With the exception of extra-ordinary weather patterns, the average rainfall for these regions is relatively good with the Colac region receiving 600mm per year on average, and the Sale region 600-900mm. The terrain of the properties visited varied from flat to hilly. The commodities produced reflected those typical of the two regions, with sheep, dairy, and beef being common (Table 1). Table 1: Commodity profile, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria, 2001/02 Commodity* Number Sheep Dairy Beef cattle Hay/crops Chickens Vegetables Native trees Silage

5 4 4 3 1 1 1 1

* Some farmers produced than 1 commodity 3.2 Tractor profile The tractors fitted ranged in age from 7 to 41 years. The average age of the tractors was 23.7 years. However, six of the ten tractors fitted were more than 20 years old. Similarly, the tractors had been owned by the farmers for an average of 23.2 years (range 2-40 years), and five had been owned by the farmers for more than 20 years. The make and models are shown in Table 2. Photographs of each retro-fitted tractor can be found in Appendix 4. Table 2: Tractor profile, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria, 2001/02 Make Model Case 1394 Case International 895 Champion 9G David Brown 880, 885, 1210 Iseki 5000 McCormick International A414 Massey Ferguson 240 Ursus 3512

6

3.3 Platform fitment processes The two FSAGs utilised a different approach to platform fitment. Group A used the platform fitment as an opportunity for a group activity that generally involved the tractor owner. The FSAG leader organised fitment days to take place on the property of an interested farmer who had a suitable on-farm workshop. Other farmers in the area would then bring their tractors to the property for fitment. The FSAG employed a local engineer to attend the fitment days, design the platforms and undertake their fitment, with the assistance of the farmers. The degree of assistance provided by the farmers depended on their expertise with the required tasks. Higher levels of assistance from the participating farmers meant that less of the engineer’s time was needed, reducing the cost. The engineer would inspect the on-farm workshop prior to the fitment day to ensure that the facilities were appropriate. The FSAG leader reported that during the process of attending the fitment workshop, farmers would discuss the safety aspects of the platform, contributing to improved knowledge about tractor safety, in addition to expanding participant expertise. One farm owner/operator in the Group A area employs a full-time engineer who attended the fitment workshop with a view to retro-fitting other tractors on the property. Promotion included an occupational health and safety day at a local research farm (including a retro-fit display), talks at Victorian Farmer Federation (VFF) meetings, field day promotions, and media coverage. Farmers heard about the idea directly from the FSAG leader, through other farmers, at VFF meetings, through the regional Victorian WorkCover Authority office, through the media, and at field day demonstrations. Group B identified two local engineers interested in undertaking fitment, and participating farmers took their tractors into the engineering workshop for fitment. Promotion included a retro-fit display and lucky draws at field days, talks at VFF and United Dairyfarmers (UDV) meetings, and media coverage. Farmers heard about the idea directly from FSAG meetings, through the VFF and UDV, from other farmers, through the media, and through relatives. One of the engineers reported that a few other farmers saw the retro-fitted tractors in his workshop, while they were there on other business, and tried out the platforms by getting on and off the tractor a few times. This resulted in a couple of these farmers having their own tractors fitted. The engineers used by both groups operated local general engineering steel fabrication businesses and were very experienced with metal work, agricultural equipment, and machinery maintenance and repairs. The overall high quality construction of the retro-fitted platforms reflected their expertise. Three farmers across both areas heard about the idea from more than one source, indicating that multiple methods of promotion may be helpful. Six farmers spent 1-3 hours prior to fitment to organise the fitment process, clean the tractor, and deliver the tractor to the fitment location. No time was required for fitment by half of the participating farmers. Among the other half, the time required was between 1 and 3 hours for 1 farmer, and between 7 and 9 hours for 4 farmers. This time was required to attend the fitment workshop activity for those in Group A area, or to wait while the fitment was undertaken in the case of Group B. 3.4 Costs of fitment The average cost of fitment was $185 per tractor for the Group A area, however the actual dollar cost to the farmers was nil, as the FSAG totally subsidised the platforms with funding obtained from the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and the Victorian Department of Human Services. Since the initial fitment workshops in this area, the cost per tractor has risen due to an increased emphasis on covering the rear wheel with the mudguard. For example, the average cost per tractor for a recently fitted group of tractors was $310. The cost per tractor varies between fitment workshops. The engineer charges according to the amount of time required and materials used. The main factors

7

influencing the variation are the distance that the engineer has to travel to the farm where fitment will take place, and the level of assistance provided by the participating farmers (increased expert assistance decreases the amount of the engineer’s time required per tractor). The time required by farmers in Group A was 0.7 hours on average prior to fitment, and 5.4 hours on average for fitment. If this time is costed using the average hourly rate of pay for a skilled agricultural worker ($14.70), then the total average cost of fitment per tractor is $275. If the more recent cost of $310 per tractor is used, then the total average cost of fitment per tractor is $400. The benefits of actually attending the fitment workshop in terms of additional skills learned, new safety information gained, and community development need to be taken into account when considering the costs and benefits of this approach. However, not all farmers will want to participate in a fitment workshop, and the approach used by Group B may better suit. The average cost of fitment in the Group B area was $446 per tractor, ranging from $330-$600. The dollar cost to two of the farmers was nil, as the fitment was a prize donated by the FSAG, and the average dollar cost for the remaining three farmers was $200, as a subsidy of $150 per tractor was available through the FSAG with funds provided by the local council. The time required by farmers in Group B was 3 hours on average prior to fitment, and no time for fitment itself. If this time is costed using the average hourly rate of pay for a skilled agricultural worker, then the total average cost of fitment per tractor is $490. 3.5 Influence of platform fitment on tractor operations Two farmers reported using the tractor more since fitment. In one case, the farmer’s brother was borrowing the tractor for slashing (for which the tractor was used prior to fitment) more frequently. In the second case, the tractor was being used more frequently because it had since been fitted with a slasher. One of the ten farmers reported using the tractor for different tasks since the platform had been fitted, however this was co-incidental to the platform fitment because a new attachable implement had been purchased for the tractor. A second farmer reported using the tractor for similar tasks but the ratio of the type of tasks had changed with the tractor being used more frequently for loading and unloading objects after fitment. This was primarily because the farm had acquired a larger tractor to use for some of the other tasks, but also because the retro-fitted tractor was now more suitable for getting on and off frequently, which occurs during loading and unloading. 3.6 Operational advantages and disadvantages All farmers identified improved safety as an advantage, and six of the ten farmers (including some of the younger farmers) reported that the tractors were easier to get on and off. This was the aspect that most impressed the farmers:

“Can’t think how we did without it” “I can’t underline the ease of use enough” “It’s one of those things you don’t realise how good it is until you experience it” “It’s amazing how designers didn’t think about getting on and especially off” “The difference is unbelievable”

One farmer reported that due to chronic back problems, he was finding it very difficult to get on the tractor because there was only room to put one foot onto the tractor and he had to swing his other leg up and through to the operator’s area which was putting intolerable strain on his back. The retrofit

8

provided him with a platform onto which he could step with enough space for two feet following which he could then get into the operator’s seat. Without the retrofit, this farmer would have had to start employing casual labour to feed out his stock. Eight farmers had not experienced any operational disadvantages. One farmer reported mud build up on the platform, which was “not much of a problem.” Two potential disadvantages were identified: getting bogged, and catching something on the platform, although neither of these problems had actually occurred. When specifically asked about the issue of carrying passengers, five farmers reported it could be tempting to carry passengers on the retro-fitted platforms. However, one of these farmers reported that passengers are going to be carried on tractors whether a platform is fitted or not, and in his view it was probably safer to carry the passenger on the platform, where there was space to stand and something to hold on to, rather than on other parts of the tractor such as on top of the mudguard or on the three point linkage at the back. 3.7 Design specifications of retro-fitted platforms Steps The guideline specifies that the height of the bottom step should be no greater than 400mm. Three of the ten retro-fitted tractors actually met this criteria (Table 3). Table 3: Height of bottom step, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria, 2001/02 Height of bottom step (mm)*

Number of tractors (N=10)

380 1 400 2 415 1 435 1 490 1 505 1 510 1 520 1 570 1 *tractors not meeting specification shown in grey The specification guidelines for the positioning of the bottom step is that its outer edge should be close to the line of the outside of the left-hand rear tyre, at the narrowest track setting. Five of the ten retro-fitted tractors met this criteria (Table 4). Regarding the step dimensions, the guidelines specify a rise not greater than 200mm and tread depth not less than 240mm. Three of the retro-fitted tractors did not actually have any steps, rather access to the tractor was straight onto a platform at the same level as the operator’s area. Three of the remaining seven retro-fitted tractors exceeded the 200mm step rise (one at 210mm and two at 270mm). Four tractors had tread depths of less than 240mm on at least one of the steps. Two of these

9

tractors had tread depths of 235mm, and the other two tractors had tread depths of 165mm and 190mm. Table 4: Position of bottom step, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria, 2001/02 Distance between outer edge of bottom step and edge of rear wheel (mm)*

Number of tractors (N=10)

Flush 5 100 1 150 1 230 1 300 1 350 1 *tractors not meeting specification shown in grey Steps were required to have a 50mm lip on the front and rear edge of the steps to provide a barrier to feet slipping in very muddy conditions. Note that front and rear refers to the front and rear of the tractor, rather than front and rear of the step as viewed when mounting the tractor. Eight tractors met this criteria. Recommended material for the steps and platforms was non-slip grating, oriented to provide maximum visibility of the ground. Grating had been used for all steps on five of the tractors. Grating had been used for the bottom step of three additional tractors, for which different material was used for the second step or platform. Grating had not been used at all on two tractors. Materials used instead of grating included checker plate (material with a raised pattern) or perforated plate (Figure 1). The ground was visible through at least the bottom step of eight tractors. Brightly coloured non-slip nosing was recommended for the edges of the steps. Four of the ten tractors had non-slip nosing on any of the steps and two tractors had brightly coloured edges.

10

Figure 1: Examples of materials used for step and platform construction, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 – clockwise: grating and perforated plate, checker plate, perforated plate, grating Handrails The front hand rail fully defined the front of the access path as recommended on six of the tractors, and partly defined it on a further three. The front hand rail met the diameter specifications (30-40mm) on eight tractors, being 20mm and 25mm on the remaining two. The upright portion of the front hand rail was within the tread of the bottom step, as recommended, on six tractors. The space between the front handrail and the platform was filled in with mesh on six tractors. Eight tractors had a handrail on the rear mudguard side of the platform. Protection from rear tyre The guidelines recommend a guard be placed between the access platform and the tractor mudguard, to prevent contact between the tyre and the operator. However, the mudguard itself could be expected to prevent this contact, if it covers the full width of the tyre. Adequate protection was provided by the rear tyre mudguard on three tractors, and by a guard attached to the platform on a further two tractors. This guard was formed from the rear handrail attached to the platform and with the resulting space filled in with wire mesh (Figure 3).

11

Figure 2: Examples of front hand rail attachment, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 – attached to outer edge of bottom step as recommended (left panel), and attached to outer edge of top step (right panel)

Figure 3: Examples of guarding of rear wheel, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 – incomplete guarding of rear wheel (left panel), complete guarding of rear wheel by rear handrail and wire mesh (middle panel), and complete guarding with mudguard (right panel).

12

Attachment Attachment and bracing of the access platforms was adequate and structurally sound. There was no reduction of underframe clearance for nine of the tractors, and minimal reduction on the remaining tractor. Attachment of the handrails was adequate with the exception of one tractor, where it appeared that the front handrail had been welded onto the roll-over protective structure frame, potentially compromising the structural integrity of the frame. Other features Access to service points had not been reduced on any tractor. The possibility of access on the opposite side had been removed as recommended in three of the tractors (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Examples of preventing access from the non-fitted side, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02: horizontal bar between rear mudguard and roll-over frame (left panel) and full guard (right panel) General observations There was a tendency on some retrofitted tractors to be unnecessarily constrained by the dimensions and positioning of the driver platform and the mudguard width. This resulted in the outer edge of the bottom step being recessed with respect to the outer edge of the rear wheel, and in insufficient guarding of the rear wheel by the mudguard (Figure 5). Although not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, the design and positioning of some steps did not provide unimpeded access, although access had been improved. For example, “split-levelling” of the top step can be seen in Figure 5 (top left panel).

13

Figure 5: Positioning of driver platform and mudguard width, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02: driver platform not extended (top left) resulting in recessed steps (top right) and existing mudguard defining the width of extended mudguard (top right); top step extended out from driver platform (bottom left) resulting in bottom step in line with outer edge of rear wheel (bottom right) and existing mudguard width extended to cover rear wheel (bottom right)

14

3.8 Impact on access and injury damage reduction Access had unquestionably been improved on each tractor, compared with that available prior to fitment. Figures 6 and 7 show the unfitted and fitted sides of a selection of the tractors, using the unfitted side as a proxy for the type of access available prior to fitment. The estimated reduction in potential damage ranged from 30-40% to 90-95% (Figures 6 and 7, Table 5). Eight tractors achieved a reduction greater than 75%. Smaller reductions on the remaining two tractors were primarily because the risk of a fatal outcome should the operator fall had not been addressed sufficiently. The bottom step outer edges were not level with the edge of the rear wheel, being recessed by 300mm on one tractor and 350mm on the other tractor. Further, the rear tyres were not adequately guarded (eg Figure 7 top right panel). These factors combined to contribute to a relatively smaller reduction in the risk of a run-over if the operator fell from the tractor while it was moving. The issues were similar for those tractors in the 75 to 90% reduction ranges as it was assessed that there was still some residual risk of run-over if the operator fell from the tractor while it was moving. For those tractors in the 90%+ range, the risk of being run-over had been adequately addressed, but there was some residual risk of falling off while mounting due to the hand rail placement combined with absence of non-slip step edges. Table 5: Estimated reduction in potential damage, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 Percentage reduction

Number of tractors (n=10)

30-40 2 75-85 1 80-90 2 85-95 2 90-95 3

15

Figure 6: Examples of unfitted (left panels) and fitted sides (right panels), safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02. Estimated percentage reduction in potential damage: tractor in top panels 30-40%, tractor in bottom panels 75-85%

16

Figure 7: Examples of unfitted (left panels) and fitted sides (right panels), safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02. Estimated percentage reduction in potential damage: tractor in top panels 30-40%, tractor in bottom panels 85-95%

17

3.9 Access on new tractors Tractor profile All the new tractors inspected except one were cabined tractors (Table 6), as un-cabined new tractors were not commonly in stock at the time of this project. Photographs of the new tractors inspected can be found in Appendix 5. Table 6: New tractors for comparison, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria, 2001/02 Make Model Case MX100 Deutz Agrotron 120MK3 Ford 4630 John Deere 5220, 6310 New Holland TS115 Valtra* 600 *no cabin Steps None of the new tractors met the 400mm height specification for the bottom step (Table 7). The average height was 478 mm, slightly higher than the average for the retro-fitted tractors (463 mm). Table 7: Height of bottom step, selection of new tractors, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 Height of bottom step (mm)

Number of tractors (n=7)

420 1 445 1 470 2 500 1 520 2 The outer edge of the bottom step was level to the outside edge of the left-hand rear tyre on 4 of the new tractors. The distance between the outer edge of the bottom step and the outside rear tyre was 112 mm, 120 mm and 250 mm on the remaining three tractors (Figure 8). Six tractors met the requirement for front and rear lips on the steps.

18

Figure 8: Examples of positioning of bottom step, new tractors, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02. Note bottom step outer edge is recessed with respect to the outer edge of rear wheel. Regarding the step dimensions, the rise exceeded 200mm on all steps on all the tractors except one, which had two rises, one of 200mm and one of 290mm. Note the inconsistency in rise dimension on this tractor, which was also noted on one other tractor which had two rises of 220mm and one of 265mm. The other step rises ranged from 220mm to 290mm. None of the new tractors had tread depths meeting the recommended minimum of 240 mm. Tread depths ranged from 100mm to 195mm. Inconsistency in tread depth dimensions was also noted on three tractors, where the difference in tread depth between steps on the same tractor ranged from 10 to 30mm. All the new tractors used non-slip materials for the steps (Figure 9), however, on 5 tractors this did not extend to the outer edges of the steps. The front edge of the steps shown in the top panel of Figure 9 has little no slip resistance. When this kind of step edging is combined with a high bottom step, the risk of slipping particularly in wet or muddy conditions may increase if the operator mounts the step by placing their foot on an angle on the front edge, rather than flat on the step tread. Three tractors had brightly coloured nosing.

19

Figure 9: Examples of step materials, selection of new tractors, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 A common observation on the new tractors with a cabin was that exiting forwards was very awkward, as the step placement and dimensions combined to only provide sufficient space for the heel, rather than the whole foot, to be placed on each step. This tended to encourage placing the foot diagonally across the step.

20

Figu

re 1

0: E

xam

ple

of fo

rwar

d ex

it, n

ew tr

acto

r, sa

fe tr

acto

r acc

ess p

latfo

rm e

valu

atio

n, V

icto

ria 2

001/

02

21

Protection from rear tyre There was no guarding of the rear tyre on the un-cabined tractor, and very little guarding of the rear tyre, either from the mudguard or the door, on the cabined tractors (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Examples of guarding of the rear wheel, selection of new tractors, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02

22

Handrails None of the new tractors had a handrail which fully defined the front of the access path, although this path was partly defined by the handrail on four tractors. (Figure 11 top left panel, Figure 12). The upright portion of the front hand rail was not within the tread of the bottom step on any tractor. The front handrail met the recommended 30-40mm diameter requirement on one new tractor, with diameters ranging from 15-25mm on the remainder. All cabined tractors had handrails on the inside of the door which provided a rear handrail for access.

Figure 12: Handrail partly defining front of access path, new tractor, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02

23

Table 8: Comparison of retro-fitted and new tractors, safe tractor access platform evaluation, Victoria 2001/02 Characteristic Retro-fitted tractors

meeting specifications (n=10)

New tractors meeting specifications (n=7)

Bottom step height 3 0 Positioning of bottom step 5 4 Step rise 4* 0 Step tread 3* 0 Step lips 8 6 Step material 5 fully, 3 partially 10 Non-slip step nosing 4 2 Brightly coloured step nosing 2 3 Front handrail fully defining access

6 4 partially

Front hand rail diameter 8 1 Front hand rail positioning 6 0 Front hand rail space filled 6 not relevant+ Front hand rail attachment 9 7 Hand rail on rear mudguard side

8 7

Protection from rear tyre 5 0 Platform attachment 10 10 Underframe clearance 10 N/A Access to service points 10 N/A Access on opposite side 3 N/A *Relevant for only 7 tractors; + not relevant because hand rails did not extend to bottom step

24

Chapter 4: Discussion of Results 4.1 Fitment process This initial implementation of safe tractor access platform retro-fitment has proved to be relatively successful. Two different fitment processes were developed and tested, both proving to be acceptable to participating farmers and engineers, and farm safety action group leaders. The two different processes each have advantages which may appeal to different farmers, engineers and local groups. One process had the advantage of being slightly less costly and possibly increasing knowledge and skills. The other process had the advantage of convenience by requiring very little of the tractor owner’s time. 4.2 Cost When participating farmer time was taken into account, the cost for fitment using the two different approaches was found to be similar ($400 compared with $490 on average per tractor). It should be noted that the actual cost per tractor can vary, not only according to the process used, but also according to the degree of difficulty involved and the type and amount of materials needed for any particular tractor. 4.3 Tractor operations The retro-fitted platforms had very little impact on tractor operations with respect to the tasks for which the tractor was used, and the amount of operational time. However, the platforms had a significant impact on the ease of access, and it was this aspect which most impressed the participating farmers. This tangible outcome experienced on a day to day basis is likely to enhance the uptake of an initiative which will also serve to improve tractor safety. There was no evidence to indicate that increased passenger carriage as a result of the retro-fitted platforms is likely. Any increased passenger carriage may be at least partially offset by the probable decrease in run-over risk, should a passenger fall from a platform or steps which meets the key criteria of extending to be level with the outer edge of the rear wheel. 4.4 Design specifications The specifications for the platform retro-fit are intended to both reduce the risk of a fall from the steps or platform, and to reduce the risk of a run-over should the operator fall from a moving tractor. The step/platform factors associated with decreasing the risk of a fall include the step height and dimensions, handrails, non-slip materials, and lips on step edges. The retro-fitted tractors did not meet the bottom step height specification particularly well. It may be that farmers are concerned about clearance issues if the bottom step is too low. There may be a design solution that could meet this concern, and still meet the height specification for tractor access, such as hinging the bottom step as is suggested in the guidelines. For those tractors that actually had steps (as opposed to an extended platform at the operator level), the dimensions were generally fairly close to those specified. Lip edges were mostly satisfactory.

25

The specified material (grating) for step construction was used for the bottom step on eight of the ten tractors. Other materials used are all commonly marketed as slip resistant. However, some of these may not perform well in this setting eg., perforated plate may become covered with grass and other organic debris too large to pass through the perforations. Similarly some of the non-slip materials used on the step nosing may not perform well in this setting. The nosing needs to provide bi-directional grip: along the step edge and across the width of the nosing, particularly if the step is too high and the operator places their foot and weight on the step edge. Few tractors had brightly coloured nosing, which could be difficult to maintain due to wear on the step edges. Handrails also generally met the guidelines. There was a tendency on some tractors to position the upright portion of the handrail in the tread of the second (or top) step rather than in the tread of the bottom step (as indicated). This may be to facilitate accessing the platform on an angle from the front of the tractor. The step/platform factors associated with decreasing the risk of a run-over should the operator fall from a moving tractor include the positioning of the outer edge of the bottom step, and the guarding of the rear wheel. The key criteria of positioning the outer edge of the bottom step to be level with the outer edge of the rear wheel was met by only half the tractors. Further, the rear wheel was adequately guarded on only half the tractors. Concern regarding mud build up on the inside of a mudguard can be countered by the inclusion of a wire guard on the platform edge nearest the rear wheel (refer to Figure 3, middle panel). Closer attention to these two specifications would have increased the estimated potential damage reduction of some retro-fitted tractors. 4.5 Other aspects of run-over prevention Reduction, through design features, of the risk of falling and of the risk of a run-over in the event of a fall are two strategies for the reduction of run-over events. A complete analysis of strategies for run-over prevention is outside the scope of this report. However, it worth noting that since a significant proportion of run-over events involve tractors with either a known or unknown ineffective park brake, regular testing and maintenance of the park brake would also play a role in run-over prevention. Further, the use of technical advances in new tractors which increase the automatic protection of tractor operators from run-over events would also contribute to future reductions as the tractor park is replaced with newer models. Continuing education and training in the management of occupational health and safety risk on farms would also play a role. 4.6 Comparison with new tractors The retro-fitted tractors performed at about the same level or better than the new tractors on step height and dimensions, rear tyre guarding, extension of bottom step to outer edge of the rear wheel, and front handrail positioning and diameter (Table 8). A particular problem with exiting new tractors forwards was identified which did not exist with the retrofitted platforms. The new tractors examined, particularly those with cabins, were obviously designed to be exited backwards, as for a ladder. However, the practice and needs of many farmers is to exit forwards. If the steps are too difficult and impractical to descend forwards, the tendency is to jump, introducing an additional risk of ankle injury. One farmer interviewed had identified these problems with new tractors, “You have these all-singing all-dancing new tractors and you can’t get into and out of them easily” The impact of the dis-benefits of access design on the new tractors may be tempered by other features and systems which reduce the risk of a run-over, such as neutral start switches, functioning park brakes, and automatic protection systems (such as requiring clutch depression or operator in seat for

26

tractor start-up). However, some of these features will become less effective as the tractor ages if not adequately maintained, and at this point, access design features will become more important for run-over prevention. 4.7 Achievement of study objectives Objectives Explore the immediate benefits and dis-benefits of the platforms identified by tractor users This objective was achieved. Few dis-benefits were identified by the tractor users and a substantial benefit of ease of access to tractors with retro-fitted platforms was identified, in addition to improved safety. Assess the design benefits and dis-benefits of the platforms installed This objective was achieved. The design benefits of the installed platforms was assessed as generally good to excellent. Some dis-benefits were identified, which could be avoided by closer attention to some of the specifications provided in the guidelines. Compare the design features of the platforms fitted with those of new tractors This objective was achieved. Overall, the retro-fitted platforms compared very favorably, and in some cases were superior, to access on new tractors. Outcomes A short report, outlining the results reported against the project objectives This outcome has been produced. Marketing information, such as benefits identified by farmers and cost to farmers, for use in further promotion This outcome has been produced. Benefits identified by farmers included greatly enhanced ease of access and improved safety. The total average cost of retro-fit (including a dollar value on farmer time) was estimated in the range of $400-$490, with the average dollar cost to farmers being between $310-$446. Early identification and therefore potential remediation of any serious dis-benefits identified This outcome has been produced. Dis-benefits identified included inadequate guarding of the rear wheel, the bottom step not being in line with the edge of the rear wheel, and in one case welding of a handrail onto a roll-over protective structure, potentially weakening its integrity. The potential for increased passenger carriage was explored and to the extent that it could be assessed, the likelihood was found to be low.

27

Chapter 5: Implications Retro-fitment of safe access platforms to tractors through farm safety action groups produced tractors which generally complied with the recommended specifications in the guidance note. The introduction of mechanisms to increase adherence to the key criteria of bottom step positioning and rear wheel guarding would enhance the impact of retro-fitted platforms. This initiative has the potential to not only significantly reduce the risk of tractor run-over events, but to also reduce the physical work demand of frequent mounting and dismounting tractors, thereby improving the work environment for farmers and potentially increasing productivity. Retro-fitment of these platforms could be considered to be current best practice in the management of tractor run-over risk in Australia, especially for older tractors. The importance of managing this risk is likely to increase as the leading cause of tractor related fatalities, roll-over events, decreases in prominence as roll-over protective structures are increasingly installed on tractors throughout Australia. Farmer organizations and other responsible groups and authorities, may need to consider ways of promoting, encouraging and facilitating uptake of this best practice. This study also has implications for the design of new tractors. New tractors without a cabin examined in this study were found to have inadequate access features. Some new tractors with cabins were also found to have less than ideal access features. This information should be disseminated to farmers so that it can be taken into account when new tractors are being purchased, and to manufacturers so that it can be taken into account when new models are being designed.

28

Chapter 6: Recommendations

• Safe tractor access platforms should be promoted through a wide range of networks including rural media, farmer organisations and groups, local government, local offices of relevant organizations and government departments such as the Victorian WorkCover Authority, engineers, and farm machinery dealers.

• Promotion should include opportunities for farmers to actually try out retro-fitted platforms

by having displays at field days and shows, engineer workshops, farm machinery dealers and other relevant locations.

• Promotional material should emphasize ease of access, reduced physical demand, reduction

of run-over risk and the relatively low cost.

• Promotion during traditionally quiet seasons could be considered as a means of increasing uptake as both farmers and tractors would be more available.

• Currently available non-slip materials should be reviewed and tested for suitability in

construction of safe tractor access platforms.

• Engineers are experienced and skilled at design and installation of modifications like the access platforms and there is considerable advantage in seeking their advice and assistance.

• Farmers and engineers should be provided with guidance on the critical characteristics of the

platforms (bottom step extending to edge of rear wheel, adequate guarding of rear wheel). Attention should particularly be drawn to ensuring that no parts are welded onto the roll-over protective structure. This could be in the form of a one page summary distributed with the standard guidance note, and including a list of suitable tested non-slip materials.

• Farmers choosing to have their tractors retro-fitted should receive written advice regarding

use of the tractor following fitment, including advice against the carriage of passengers.

• The fitting of a no passenger decal on retro-fitted platforms could be considered.

• The process(es) for retro-fitting safe tractor access platforms may best be designed or selected at regional or local levels to provide mechanisms appropriate to local needs.

• A mechanism for sharing of platform designs among farmers and engineers considering

retro-fitment should be developed.

• Other aspects of run-over prevention, particularly park brake maintenance could also be addressed at the time of platform fitment.

• New un-cabined tractors which do not meet the guidelines for safe access may need to be

retrofitted prior to purchase.

• The issue of safe access on tractors with cabins should be further examined, before recommendations can be made.

29

References Australian Bureau of Statistics. Employee earnings and hours. Canberra: The Bureau. 2000; Catalogue No: 6306.0 Brison R, Pickett W, Hartling L, and Matys R. Fatal farm injuries in Canada, 1990-1996. Canadian Agricultural Injury Surveillance Program. 1998. Buchele WF. Running boards for farm tractors. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1994. Technical Paper 94-5009. Clarke L. and Coleman R. Profile of farm health and safety: a report to Farmsafe Australia. Moree: Australian Agricultural Health Unit. December 1995. Davidson A. National tractor safety project final report. Moree: Australian Agricultural Health Unit. 1994/95. Davidson A, McDonald G, Tullberg J. and Collie S. Safe tractor access platform. Moree: Australian Agricultural Health Unit. Day L. Farm work related fatalities among adults in Victoria, Australia: the human cost of agriculture. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1999; 31: 153-159 Fragar, L. and Franklin, R. Farmsafe Australia Goals, Targets And Strategy 1996-2001: Mid term review. 1999. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, University of Sydney. Franklin R, Mitchell R, Driscoll T, and Fragar L. Farm-related fatalities in Australia, 1989-1992. Moree: Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. 2000. Publication No 00.70. Langley JD, Clarke J, Marshall SW, Cryer PC, and Alsop J. Tractor fatalities and injury on New Zealand farms. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 1997; 3(4): 237-251. Lee TY, Gerberich SG, Gibson RW, Carr WP, Shutske J, and Renier CM. A population based study of tractor-related injuries: Regional Rural Injury Study-I. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1996; 38(8): 782-93 Lough, J. and Day, L. Farm Injury Surveillance Tools (FIRST). Annual Report 2000. 2001; Vol 3(1). Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Myers J, Snyder K, Hard D, Casini V, Cianfrocco, Fields J, and Morton L. Statistics and epidemiology of tractor fatalities – a historical perspective. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 1997; 3(4): 237-251. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Agricultural Industry Fact Sheet. 1999. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Work-related fatalities involving tractors in Australia, 1989 to 1992. Sydney: The Commission; 2000.

30

Appendix 1 Safe tractor access platform guidance note reproduced with permission from the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety, Moree, New South Wales

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Appendix 2 Semi-structured farmer interview

40

ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE SAFE TRACTOR ACCESS PLATFORM FARMER INTERVIEW Funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Date of interview _____/_____/2000 Interviewer________ ID number_________ 1. Can you tell me briefly how you heard about the platform idea and how you went about

fitment? 2. Who designed the platform and what criteria were used? 3. How much of your time was required to fit the platform?________________________ 4. How much of your time was required prior to fitment for organisation?

__________________ 5. How much did the fitment cost you?__________________________________________

41

6. Were there any other costs associated with fitment eg., having the tractor out of operation?

__________________________________________________________________________ 7. What kind of tasks did you use this tractor for before fitment of the platform Cultivating/ground preparation

Fertilising

Pesticide application

Planting/seeding

Harvesting Mechanical loading and unloading or moving objects

Transporting goods/equipment

Transporting passengers (exc the driver)

Stationary power supply

Other tasks (specify)

8. Approximately how many hours per year was this tractor used prior to

fitment?___________ 9. Since platform fitment, is this tractor now used for tasks for which it was not previously

used? Yes No

10. If yes what kind of tasks is the tractor now used for? Cultivating/ground preparation

Fertilising

Pesticide application

Planting/seeding

Harvesting Mechanical loading and unloading or moving objects

Transporting goods/equipment

Transporting passengers (exc the driver)

Stationary power supply

Other tasks (specify)

42

11. Since platform fitment, are you using this tractor more than you were before?

Yes No 12. If yes, how much more, are there specific tasks for which it is used more often, and why

are you using it more often? 13. Have you noticed any difference in using the tractor since the platform was fitted?

Yes No 14. If yes, what kind of differences? 15. What are the major advantages in having the platform fitted?

43

16. Have you noticed any disadvantages in having the platform fitted? 17. How long have you been farming? ____________________________ 18. What is the major commodity produced on your property?________________________ Comments

44

Appendix 3 Tractor inspection protocol

45

ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE SAFE TRACTOR ACCESS PLATFORM ASSESSMENT Funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Date of assessment _____/_____/2000 Assessor__________ IDnumber_________ Transfer from participant sheet: Tractor Make: Tractor Model: Year of Manufacture:

Year of Purchase:

Tractor should be assessed on level ground with wheels on narrowest track setting 1. Describe the overall appearance of the platform including whether it is more like a ladder

or a stair case, materials used in construction, signs of wear and tear etc STEPS 2. Height of bottom step (mm): _______________________ 3. Position of outer edge of bottom step in relation to the outside of the left-hand rear tyre 4. Describe the material from which the steps are constructed

46

5. Step dimensions Insert the dimensions (mm) in the relevant area. Step 1 is considered to be the bottom step. Record the rise between steps 1 and 2 against step 2, between 2 and 3 against step 3 etc. If there is no lip edge, record 0. Rise Tread Depth Lip front edge Lip rear edge Step1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 6. Step features Place a tick or cross in the relevant area, to indicate the presence or absence of each of these three features. Non-slip

nosing Contrast edge Visibility of

ground through step

Step1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 HANDRAILS 7. Is there a handrail which fully defines the front of the access path?

Yes No

8. Is there a handrail which partly defines the front of the access path?

Yes No N/A

9. Diameter of front hand rail (mm): __________________

47

10. Is the space between the front hand rail and platform filled in?

Yes No 11. Is the space filled in using mesh with minimum dimensions 75mm x 75mm?

Yes No N/A

12. Is there a handrail on the rear mudguard side of the access path?

Yes No ATTACHMENT 13. Dimension (mm) of any reduction in underframe clearance due to supports for access

platform (if no apparent reduction, enter 0) ____________________

14. Is the attachment and bracing of access platform adequate?

Yes No If no, comment on the attachment and bracing________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 15. Is the attachment of the hand rails adequate?

Yes No If no, comment on the attachment _________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 16. Has any component been welded onto structural components of ROPS?

Yes No

48

17. Is the footplate and operator platform mounted on flexible isolators? Yes No

18. If yes to Q17, has the access platform also been mounted on isolators?

Yes No OTHER 19. Has access to any service point been reduced as a result of the access platform fitment?

Yes No If yes, which service points and how significant is the reduction__________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 20. Have cabin roof edges been padded where necessary?

Yes No 21. Has the possibility of access on opposite side been reduced eg., by placement of a bar?

Yes No Photo number(s): _____________________________________________________________ Comments

49

Appendix 4 Safe access platforms on retro-fitted tractors

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Appendix 5 Access on new tractors

61

62

63

64

65

66

67