Martin Engineering: Challenging Conveyor Safety Myths
ECONOMY & POLICY

Martin Engineering: Challenging Conveyor Safety Myths

Martin Engineering, a global leader in conveyor safety, challenges the traditional notion of "Guarding by Location" in conveyor equipment. Despite decades of safe design and comprehensive training, the industry has witnessed lapses in workplace safety due to this practice, sometimes resulting in injuries and fatalities. This article questions the assumption that machinery placed beyond a worker's reach doesn't require a guard and highlights the potential risks associated with this approach.

Risks of Guarding by Location: Conveyors and machinery near workers or walkways are typically fitted with safety guards, but "Guarding by Location" assumes that hazards positioned out of a worker's immediate reach do not require such protection. This assumption can lead to serious hazards, such as unguarded return rollers over walkways that can pose a significant risk.

Worker Risks: Regulations often define a general safe height for components based on the average height of workers. Taller employees, however, may be at risk when reaching into components placed above a certain height. Working above machinery considered "guarded by location" exposes workers to a higher risk of injury if they slip or fall to a lower level.

Unaccounted Factors: Most regulations do not consider the potential accumulation of spillage beneath conveyors or in walkways, which can alter the distance between the working surface and a hazard. In some cases, material is deliberately collected or bins are filled to gain access for service or inspection, leading to hazardous activities when tools extend a worker's reach while the belt is running.

Hazards From Above: Guarding by location can create exceptions to the general requirements for hazard guarding. Hazards such as nip points between the belt and return rollers, drive components, pulley shafts, couplings, drive belts, gears, and chains are often found around elevated conveyors. These hazards, including falling components, can be overlooked if considered guarded by location.

Guarding Best Practices: To address the issues associated with guarding by location, installing guards and baskets to protect workers from lateral and overhead hazards while ensuring safe access is a logical solution. All nip points, shear points, and moving or rotating components should be guarded, regardless of location or access.

Standardisation for Safety: While there is no global standard for guard mesh sizes and mounting distances, standardizing these aspects would improve safety. It would allow maintenance workers to build guards with a shortlist of materials and eliminate the need for gauges to measure distances. Standardisation encourages routine inspections without the need to remove guards.

Ending the Myth: Guarding by location, despite its widespread acceptance, presents challenges in overhead conveyor applications. It's time to acknowledge that, when it comes to conveyors, the concept of "guarding by location" is a myth that should be abandoned in favour of more comprehensive safety measures.

Martin Engineering, a global leader in conveyor safety, challenges the traditional notion of Guarding by Location in conveyor equipment. Despite decades of safe design and comprehensive training, the industry has witnessed lapses in workplace safety due to this practice, sometimes resulting in injuries and fatalities. This article questions the assumption that machinery placed beyond a worker's reach doesn't require a guard and highlights the potential risks associated with this approach. Risks of Guarding by Location: Conveyors and machinery near workers or walkways are typically fitted with safety guards, but Guarding by Location assumes that hazards positioned out of a worker's immediate reach do not require such protection. This assumption can lead to serious hazards, such as unguarded return rollers over walkways that can pose a significant risk. Worker Risks: Regulations often define a general safe height for components based on the average height of workers. Taller employees, however, may be at risk when reaching into components placed above a certain height. Working above machinery considered guarded by location exposes workers to a higher risk of injury if they slip or fall to a lower level. Unaccounted Factors: Most regulations do not consider the potential accumulation of spillage beneath conveyors or in walkways, which can alter the distance between the working surface and a hazard. In some cases, material is deliberately collected or bins are filled to gain access for service or inspection, leading to hazardous activities when tools extend a worker's reach while the belt is running. Hazards From Above: Guarding by location can create exceptions to the general requirements for hazard guarding. Hazards such as nip points between the belt and return rollers, drive components, pulley shafts, couplings, drive belts, gears, and chains are often found around elevated conveyors. These hazards, including falling components, can be overlooked if considered guarded by location. Guarding Best Practices: To address the issues associated with guarding by location, installing guards and baskets to protect workers from lateral and overhead hazards while ensuring safe access is a logical solution. All nip points, shear points, and moving or rotating components should be guarded, regardless of location or access. Standardisation for Safety: While there is no global standard for guard mesh sizes and mounting distances, standardizing these aspects would improve safety. It would allow maintenance workers to build guards with a shortlist of materials and eliminate the need for gauges to measure distances. Standardisation encourages routine inspections without the need to remove guards. Ending the Myth: Guarding by location, despite its widespread acceptance, presents challenges in overhead conveyor applications. It's time to acknowledge that, when it comes to conveyors, the concept of guarding by location is a myth that should be abandoned in favour of more comprehensive safety measures.

Next Story
Resources

ULCCS Showcases Cooperative Model at UN Symposium

Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society (ULCCS) showcased its community-led development model at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, where it participated as a panellist at the International Symposium on Cooperative Financial Institutions held on 28–29 May 2026.Jointly organised by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), the International Cooperative Banking Association (ICBA), and the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), the symposium was held under the theme ‘Fuelling Inclusive and Equitable Growth’ and brought together policymakers,..

Next Story
Infrastructure Transport

Delhi Airport to Finalise 20-Year Master Plan

Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) is finalising a 20-year master plan to guide long term infrastructure and operational development at Indira Gandhi International Airport, an official said. The operator expects the plan to reflect changes in the airline industry, shifts in the competitive landscape and evolving infrastructure requirements across terminals, airside and support services. The official said the document is likely to be ready in the next two to two-and-a-half months as the operator moves through planning stages. The plan will be prepared after consultations with airport users ..

Next Story
Real Estate

Aadhar Housing Finance Targets Rs 500 bn AUM By FY29

Aadhar Housing Finance has set a target to raise its asset under management to Rs 500 billion (bn) by the end of FY29, aiming to achieve this over the next three financial years through an 18-20 per cent loan growth trajectory. The firm focuses on the low-income segment with a ticket size of less than Rs 1.5 million (mn) and has relied on that segment to drive expansion. The company closed FY26 with an AUM of Rs 305.71 bn, reflecting the expansion in recent years, and it reported a net profit rise of 22 per cent to Rs 11.08 bn. Management indicated that gross non-performing assets stood at 1.0..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement