Rather than trying to force upon people a policy that some might have personal, cultural or religious reasons for not wishing to comply with, why not use the example of the recent accident to explain to your staff why it might not be a good idea, and to encourage them not to. You could document this in RA/SSOW with a recommendation not to wear. When I joined the RAF many years ago we were encouraged not to wear rings and were shown some examples where the wearing of rings had either ‘caused’ or exacerbated injuries. For the vast majority of my service I never wore my wedding ring and still don’t to this day.

Having been a supplier / contractor at various premises with "no jewellery" policies one consideration they all seemed to have in common in their practices was where wedding bands or other flat rings were not readily removable due to the passage of time. They appreciated the sentimental attachment of the wearer and did not force removal of the item, instead the instruction was that whilst on site they were to be covered over with a highly visible adhesive tape such that no gap was readily present between the ring and finger. Readily removable items (watches, necklaces etc.) had to be removed before entering the premises. One or two sites were kind enough to have a bank of lockers (like the safe deposit boxes in hotels) for secure storage of "banned items" whilst on site - the key to which had a safety pin to secure it to work wear.

I'm not so sure I agree canopener. Some of the employees in the company I work for would choose not to wear hi-viz vests because they have "personal" reasons or harnesses when working at height because they don't see a need and find them inconvenient. I worked as a fitter in a power station a few years ago and I still bear the scars from almost losing a finger when the ring I was wearing got caught under some metal and it had happened to several others before me. As a result, the wearing of rings was banned when working in operational areas. If it had been done so before I had my accident I would still have full use of my finger now.

Nothing to do with the present question, but in response to the comments about not being able to remove a ring, many years ago when I had just started to become involved with skin I was working with a consultant dermatologist in his clinic and he had a patient with a pronounced dermatitis underneath his wedding ring. He had not been able to remove this for years, he said. The dermatologist produced a length of string and some vegetable oil. He passed the string underneath the ring, then wound it tightly around the finger toward the finger tip until over the next joint. He then soaked the string with oil and pulled on the end projecting through the ring. The ring simply slid along the finger under the pressure from the string. In answer to my question he responded that removing rings to get at skin damage was a common problem and that this solution was well known in dermatological circles. I have tried it since on a couple of people and it has worked both times.

I would suggest that "taping off or using a plaster" would be rather ineffective for 2 reasons. 1, the tape or plaster would have to be so tight as to cause circulation problems to be in any way effective and 2, the person would find it so inconvenient they would not do it anyway. From experience I know that if something is a suggestion then most people will not change regardless of whether they see countless gory movies, pictures or whatever because they don't think it will happen to them. We banned the use of stanley knives in our company due to the high number of people cutting themselves with them. We banned the wearing of rigger boots due to the high number of ankle injuries. In both cases the number of incidences went from significant to non existent overnight. Did the workers like it? No but they were better off because of it and so was the company because we didn't have these people off due to injury. The point is, probably most of the time the ring will not get snagged but if it does the consequences can be life altering which I can attest to. It can also mean that the company who let said person wear the ring will be facing a much bigger insurance premium next year if there was a claim and we all know, where there is blame there is a claim. If anyone in our company loses a finger because they got their ring caught the lose their job too. It might not be the way it's done in the RAF but actually, to my mind it is the only way to ensure people don't get their fingers ripped off by getting them caught on ladders or in machinery or whatever.

If the people who you are relying on to enforce it don't agree with it, it is doomed to fail (personal experience).

Thanks for comments so far. Agree that gloves could be a suitable control on ladders but when working on metal working machinery, e.g. lathes, drilling machines gloves (and rings) are a definite no-no due to the entanglement risks which are well documented in HSE guidance (HSG129). Indeed there was a recent prosecution by the HSE of a Cheshire chemical company who had implemented a mandatory glove policy despite this and one of their employees lost two fingers when his glove became entangled in a lathe he was operating. So I don't think gloves can be considered as a suitable control (as an alternative to removing rings) in this instance and given the potential seriousness of injury that can be caused merely 'advising' employees in an RA/SSoW as opposed to an outright ban would certainly not be considered as reducing risk 'as low as reasonably practicable'. Thoughts?

There are of course a number of ways to try and manage risks etc. A sledgehammer approach isn’t always necessary or in my experience effective. For the sake of clarity I haven’t suggested the use of “..countless gory movies, pictures..” and I do NOT advocate such an approach. That doesn’t stop me from using examples to help explain risk or encourage the use of sensible and proportionate controls. . It might not be the way it's done in the RAF…”. Of course it isn’t the way that it is done across a wide range of industries where ladders are used either! As I allude to below, the use of ladders is widespread; I suggest that the banning of rings for those that use ladders isn’t. The issue is about sensible risk management, not the elimination of all risk including those that might result in serious injury. The original post was regarding eh banning of jewellery for those climbing ladders, not using lathes; this is a different risk requiring a different approach. “..given the potential seriousness of injury that can be caused merely 'advising' employees in an RA/SSoW as opposed to an outright ban would certainly not be considered as reducing risk 'as low as reasonably practicable'.”. Of course the test of RP relies on the consideration of (at least) two elements. Similarly, as does the consideration of risk; not just the “seriousness of injury”. So although you have clearly had an injury you need to put that into the context of the overall risk by considering the likelihood (and I know some will argue that since the injury has occurred that the likelihood is now high) that this will continue to happen considering the number of operations where exposure occurs. Of course you are considering your own situation, but across the country each day there must be literally countless occasions where ladders are used by people who are not subjected to a jewellery ban, and who wear jewellery (rings) without suffering any significant injury. I aren’t as convinced as others that advice isn’t ‘allowed’ or appropriate when considering your risk management. Consider the risk of contracting a specific infection (see recent thread) . In my RA I identify the risk and I identify that a vaccination is available and that is an effective control (there are others that may or may not be as effective). Can or should I force someone to have the vaccination? I suggest not. What I can do is explain the risk and advise or recommend that they have one. Am I wrong to do that? I would almost certainly be wrong NOT to advise. Similarly the use of sunblock for protection against the risks of exposure to the sun (skin cancer/malignant melanoma). Again, I can explain the risks, provide and encourage the use of sunblock, but can I realistically enforce the use of it? I suggest not. (I should say that I am not entirely convinced of the efficacy of sun block in many occupational situations anyway!). So. Put your risk into context. You don’t always need to use a sledgehammer. And, I personally consider that an ‘advisory’ is in some cases an appropriate method of (trying to) manage risk. The one thing I have learned over the years, is that what you expect someone to do, what you want them to do and what you ‘instruct’ them to do, are sometimes far removed from what they do, do in practice.

Yeah but you forgot to add that they were twice the size of Bett Lynch’s.