Posted By Kevin Drew My company is the principle contractor on a large decommissioning project. The bulk of the work involves de-planting multiple rooms and areas inside a large building. The client is insisting that all our staff wear high visibility clothing within the building. There will be essentially little or no vehicular traffic within the building other than the occasional FLT. There is a large overhead crane with several hoists attached. There is no history of accidents within the building that could be attributed to workers not being seen. The client is stating that since the building is a "construction site" under CDM, high viz clothing is a legal requirement. I am opposed to wearing high viz clothing since it will conflict with other PPE being worn, is expensive and in my view is unjustifiable in the circumsatnces. Any thoughts both for and against the wearing of high viz clothing in these circumstances would be appreciated. Kevin

Posted By Kevin Drew Geoff, Sorry, the thread was put together in a bit of a rush. Incompatible would have been a better choice of word. Much of the work will be done in air fed hoods and suits and the wearing of high viz clothing over the top seems pointless. There are much more significant hazards in the workplace than lack of visibility. I don't like blanket impositions of PPE particulalry when they are unnecessary. I also do not think it's a legal requirement but stand to be corrected. Kevin

Posted By Geoff Burt Agreed Robert. I'm afraid my question wouldn't be 'is it the law', it would be 'can we reduce the risks if we wear them?', and the answer is yes. In any case what harm will it do to have vests which are easy to wear (I don't agree they would be incompatible) at a minimum cost.

Posted By Geoff Burt That's not a fair comment Kevin. You asked for views and you got them. The fact you disagree doesn't call for fly comments about belts and braces - indeed it might be a little marker for you to review your own ideas.

Posted By Messy I can't see the problem if Hi Vis wear is so cheap and you want the contract, buy the stuff.

Posted By Andy Petrie Kevin, If you have done a risk assessment which shows that the risks are low and do not warrant the hi-viz then that's fair enough. As long as you have gone through the process and beleive that your findings are appropriate then I see no need to wear the Hi-Viz. People who say that you should wear them any way just in case are really missing the point of risk management. I mean, there is a risk that my computr screen may explode but I don't sit here all day with safety specs on!

Posted By Andy Petrie I have to disagree with the good safety culture argument. It is my view that PPE should only be used in areas where it is necessary. Getting people to wear PPE all the time (and I mean by that when it is not necessary) simply gets them into the mindset that it is just something they should do, then they lose the think between PPE and risk. Staff should use their brains at work and getting them to realise that PPE is there for a specific reason, and gettingg them to realise why they are wearing it is good safety culture. Getting them to wear it all the time for no reason is just the easy way out, and in my view could easily lead to an unsafe culture where accidents are more likely to happen.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Just to be my old pedant again!! there is no such thing as a principle contractor it is princiPAL. Having said that an interesting point was made by one construction inspector to the effect - if a site rule is defined it becomes a legal obligation under CDM to comply. This would be via the duties placed on the PC to make such rules, including the institution of any client rules, enforcement of the site rules and the obeying of such rules by contractors as they comply with their duties. I realy do not see the problem with hi-vis wear and there is a wide variety of choice around nowdays including polo shirts, fleeces and other garments such that interference with other PPE can be eliminated. In a fire situation and poor visibility it is amazing how such wear can improve the locating of other persons in a building. I really suspect that there are cultural/social issues at play here Bob

Posted By Geoff Burt 'Getting them to wear it all the time for no reason is just the easy way out, and in my view could easily lead to an unsafe culture where accidents are more likely to happen.' Andy, I've copied the above sentence from one of your messages. It could be a subject for a dissertation methinks. I agree with the principle behind the sentence ie for no good reason, but is that a valid argument in this specific case where there is some, albeit limited, FLT activity. But of course it is a demolition job so there will be a lot of vehicle movements to take away materials and all the activities associated with demolition. As a 'professional' I would find it very hard to leave out a very simple control measure that is of a minimum cost, is not uncomfortable to wear, and is compatible with other PPE being used on site. To some it might be belts and braces, to others (and I hate to say this) it is just common sense. Geoff

Posted By Kevin Drew All, Thank you for you comments, both helpful and otherwise. My comments that Geoff took to be "unfair" and "fly" illicited some additional interest as was intended. Geoff you seem unduly sensitive - I thought that we were all thick skinned - a requirement of the job? You also seem to be reading more into the project than was stated. I never mentioned demolition, just decommissioning and de-planting. There will not be lots of vehicle movements, certainly not inside the building or the multitude of small plant rooms. There will be considerable OH crane movements but there are already other controls in place to prevent accidents. Incidentally, I have no problem with wearing high viz clothing outside the building where traffic movements will take place and its use is justified. For information we already have the contract - the wearing of high viz clothing within the building was not mentioned in the ITT. The issue about conflicting/incompatability with other PPE is genuine. Obtaining high viz vests/t-shirts, etc to fit over the top of air fed suits will not be easy (we could wear them underneath of course but that kind of defeats the object). XXXXL may just about do it (if they are available) but this all about relative risk. There are a multitude of other much more significant hazards associated with the project eg. asbestos, radioactivity, noise, vibration, working at height, lmanual handling to name but a few without being made to wear high viz clothing where the hazard is trivial. As to the comments about common sense - I have to admit that I've never found it that common - not amongst others anyway. The unjustified blanket impositions of PPE, no matter how cheap or easy does nothing for the reputation of ourselves or our profession. Once again, thank you all. Kevin