Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 19 September 2003 09:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Battye MIOSH, MRICS Can any provide examples of accidents that have occurred due to failure to wear a hard hat, preferably in low risk areas on construction sites where the risk wasnt originally "forseeable" I'm preparing a talk for my building surveyor colleagues, most of whom control small lower risk building sites where I am coming up against the difficulty of enforcing hard hat provision
Admin  
#2 Posted : 19 September 2003 09:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Am I missing something here? You said that there was no forseeable risk... so why are you insisting they wear hard hats? Please tell me I'm missing something.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 19 September 2003 09:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Hold on I think I get it now... You are looking for totally unexpected & unforseen accidents where the wearing of a hard hat could have or did protect the wearer from injury. Then you can say: "It's important to wear your hard hat at all times because you never know what's going to happen." Yes?
Admin  
#4 Posted : 19 September 2003 10:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis John I think sometimes people really do not understand that there is never truly a low risk construction site until we are at the final knockings during handover and snagging when the painter is the common cause of concern. Easy answer is to make the need for Hard Hats a site rule and it is then enforceable by the contractor in control. If the B. Surveyors don't want to wear them I suggest that they go elsewhere to work. I am sure the HSE would wish to take the same view. As long as contractors are prepared to try and find a way round the need for particular groups we will never be able to squeeze these attitudes out of the industry. I apologise if I seem strident it is not you that is the target but these people in the industry who believe themselves to somehow a different case.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 19 September 2003 10:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Thanks for clarification there Robert, Moral: Just because someone says there is no risk, doesn't mean there is no risk. I agree with your penultimate paragraph though, there should be no exceptions to the rule as this just adds layers of difficulty for the site manager: "Why should I wear X, when so and so isn't." John, I'm not sure of it's relevance to surveyors, but I have just remembered an incident at one site where an employee was disposing of waste into a skip when part of a broken pallet was catapulted out and struck him on the head. The employee was saved from injury because he had been wearing a hard hat having just left a hard hat area at the time. Sorry I misunderstood the initial question.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 19 September 2003 11:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve White I have experience of an accident on a construction site as a result of the chute on the rear of a concrete delivery lorry swinging round and hitting a worker on the side of the head. The resulting impact caused severe damage to the hard hat and only minor shock / injury to the worker. Regards, Steve White
Admin  
#7 Posted : 19 September 2003 11:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Des Daly Jonathan, Took a call one day from a client's SA who asked me ,'What I thought of people wearing cowboy hats on site?'. I thought he was joking and replied that 'I thought all cowboys wore cowboy hats'. He was really not amused and tore into me about one of our employees walking around the site wearing a cowboy hat. I found it hard to believe but accepted what he was telling me. I replied that is was unacceptable and the person in the cowboy hat be told to go and get his Safety Hard hat etc, warned of behaviour etc. Reminded of Site Rules etc. etc. Anyway on investigation I found out that a local agreement between our site manager and the Principal Cont. whereby our employees working inside a building ,snagging,would not need to wear their safety hard hats - as there was no foreseeable risk of injury to their heads had been struck. One of our blokes wore a large Trilby type hat to work and kept it during his work on site after the agreement was made. But, the agreement not to wear hard hats inside the building soon extended to not wearing safety hard hats out on site. Hence the man wearing a cowboy hat phone call. After gathering the facts I called the client's SA back and told him the whole story. Together we nullified the agreement forthwith and re-established the wearing of safety hard hats at all times whilst on site. So in my experience trying to introduce compromises or dispensations does not work. Site Rules applying to all persons in the work area is the only and best way. As a footnote; I visited the site later and found our man wearing his Tribly and his hard hat at the same time - he looked simply ludicrous and keeping a straight face as I ordered back to get his hat was quite diffcult.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 19 September 2003 12:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch John My experience includes investigation of the following: Plumber working from ladder repairing gutters, not wearing helmet. Part of the gutter collapsed injuring his head. His local authority employer had assessed this type of work as requiring helmet. Refurbishment project working inside flat, not wearing helmet, when part of the ceiling collapsed resulting in head injury. Refurbishment project at finishing stages. Painter working inside flat - no reasonably foreseaable risk of something falling onto head. No helmet. Walked out into courtyard and past small section of scaffold whilst gin wheel being relocated. Part fell striking head. Section 2 prosecution against painting sub-contractor, Section 4 against main contractor 1987 - ie before Head Protection Regs. Both defended in Glasgow Sheriff Court. Prosecution agreed that total risk to painter per day less than 2 minutes. Sheriff held that enforcing use of helmets for the short periods involved was reasonably practicable, hence both charges guilty decision. Failure of part of piling rig. Large lump of metal fell about 15m onto labourer's head, and then onto collar bone. Out of hospital 4 days later with broken collar bone. Helmet deflected the object. Scaffolders adjusting scaffold. One lost control of 6m ladder beam which swung roung into workmate's head. Knocked down but no serious injury, as struck helmet. Regards, Peter
Admin  
#9 Posted : 19 September 2003 20:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Sedgwick Well done Robert, there should be more of use with this frame of mind. If the rule is implemented there should be management commitment towards enforcing it. Don’t let people pick and choose which rules they will apply and which they will not that’s poor management. Steve
Admin  
#10 Posted : 22 September 2003 16:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karen Todd Hi there, I heard of the following incident: A wall was built and had been covered over with polythene sheeting, held in place by a couple of bricks. Someone wanted to look at the wall, lifted up the polythene and one of the bricks holding the polythene sheeting fell and struck him on the head. He was very lucky because he escaped with a graze to the head, a sore shoulder from where the brick bounced off his head and he was slightly stunned. If you go to www.safteng.net and do the Google search there for "brick", you will find a very scary photo of a deceased person's skull from a brick falling on him. I think it describes "concentric ripples"... I appreciate that the effects of gory photos are only good short term, but the photo is quite shocking. Regards, Karen Todd
Admin  
#11 Posted : 23 September 2003 11:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alan Barthrope I work for a construction company which carries out new build and refurbishment work. We find that most of our head injuries stem from persons putting their heads up into ceiling voids either whilst inspecting the area or whilst working with their head & shoulders up in the void. Most of the persons receiving these injuries believed that they were personaly not at risk and our site management still can't get the enforecement message into their heads, because they too believe there is no foreseeable risk. This is despite me keep telling them that there is. I hope that this gives you another practical example.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 23 September 2003 12:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Good point Alan, And of course it is highly forseeable that said person sustaining this injury would be working at height. Stunned people at the top of ladders is never a good thing.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.