Posted By naomi
Hi All
Could any one clarify if Rigger Boots are soon to be banned from any-one working in the vicinity of water ways?

My partner has recently been informed they are no longer suitable as in the event of an accident they would fill up with water and weigh you down.

Naomi

Posted By naomi
Hi David
You may me right, but he has been to 3 sites now and they have all said no to rigger boots!
Maybe as you said it is a myth and it is like a chinese whisper!!!

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I'm confused!

If they're that easy to step out of, then surely they would be good to wear as they could be easily discarded - making it easier for you to swim if you end up in the drink?

I think we need to identify the real reason here in order to put to bed the myth.

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
My understanding is that rigger boots were favoured in situations where falling into water (or other liquid) was a possibility. This, because they could be relatively easily "kicked off". (Wellingtons being hard to remove as they "bind round the ankle)

They then became popular in the wider construction industry, again due to there ease of removal and high leg.

In recent years some industries, most notably the rail industry, have frowned upon there use. I think because of the increased risk of turning your ankle when walking on rail ballast.

I am not aware of a ban on there general use.

Posted By Bob Youel

the ankle support myth again

I have undertaken extensive research re this area and there is no credible proof that I have found that theses boots are any less supportive than others

After extensive argument with one manager I found out that he simply did not like then

Another manager could get cheaper boots irrespective of their correct fit nor comfort elsewhere so he tried to ban riggers

Its also common for riggers to be banned but managers wear shoes, that have no support at all, in the same environment where others have to wear traditional boots

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Just to look at this from a different angle - If the ground is so rough that ankle injuries are likely to occur with what is a sturdy item of footwear perhaps the state of the site is such that it needs to review the standard of its walkways and work areas. I have yet to see the same moves to eliminate wellington boots and waders which are certainly even less supportive of the ankle.

Again with the question of ladders - answer is to eliminate the obsession with ladders on scaffolds and elsewhere rather than the boots themselves.

Humankind evolved without shoes and even on rough ground our ankles, at least for most people, are sufficiently strong to take loadings. Certainly was for the Romans - I suspect that ankle injuries were probably the least problem in their construction work!

The current moves, I believe, represent some of the poor thinking concerning risk assessment that bedevils employers. This urban myth needs to be firmly nailed unless someone can provide good INDEPENDENT research to show that this is a real issue. Having had polio and left with various weaknesses in knees legs and ankles I personally prefer the support provided by my riggers to lace up ankle boots which i can never lace up to fit properly. Are we going to discriminate against the partially disabled because of blind bonkers assessments, or lack of any?

Bob

Posted By steve e ashton
Bob and Bob:

See previous threads - try 'rigger boots railway'.

Network Rail, Blue Circle Cement, offshore operators and others all came to the same conclusion around three-four years ago.

The decision to ban was not a 'conkers' decision.

If a Company (or industry) identifies a significant risk to workers from direct evidence of injuries, then it MUST take action - there should be no need to commission 'independent research' when the evidence is already available.

And anyone who thinks that the full length of the UK rail network should be provided with safe, level, smooth walking routes (Both sides of the track?) has no comprehension of the problems faced by track owners operators and maintainers.

I am only surprised that so many workers are still wearing 'em, and that (apparently) so many H&S practitioners are willing to accept their use.

Steve

Posted By Robert.
Yes some companies are totally banning rigger boots without reason. Jumping on the band wagon I suppose.
There have been cases where our guys turn up at site to be told that they're not allowed to wear them, without previous notification.
I thought PPE was to be fit for use and be comfortable for the wearer.
Some dont like rigger boots (me) and find them uncomfortable others don't like lace ups for the same reason.
If a person says that the rigger boots give him / her the support and protection and is then told to wear lace-ups, who, then is responsible for ankle / ligament damage to that person due to a forced change of PPE.
Are there any manufacturers out there?

Posted By steve e ashton
Jonathan:

I agree the 'water-filling drag down' is a spurious myth. When in water, full wellies / riggers / waders are no heavier than out of water (water within boots has neutral buoyancy) and may even be lighter... If air is trapped by pointing feet upwards to hold air by toes. Trained as an angler with chest waders. The problem comes when you try to climb out - and the weight can be extremely difficult to cope with.

Robert:

I recall seeing a variety of accistat breakdown figures on ankle injuries from a client a few years ago - I will try to find and send off line. I do not believe the reasoning behind the requirement for 'ankle supporting boots' is a myth. If there are specific medical reasons for provision / wearing of alternatives then the different risks need to be balanced - it may well be that for some individuals lace-up, ankle-supporting boots may be inappropriate. I make no comment on individual cases without consideration of personal circumstance.

Steve

Posted By steve e ashton
Robert

Sorry I cannot trace the client stats I remember seeing... My records are not as good as I had hoped.

So if someone else can help out? I am sure these figures were available in the rail industry - and I'm reasonably certain there was a similar study done for forestry workers..

HSE do mention the issue in their INDG for waste sites at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/waste09.pdf which suggests that "lace-up boots with good
ankle support are to be preferred over ‘rigger’ boots which offer little ankle
support". However, (and not for the first time) it could be that HSE is repeating a myth.

Can anyone provide numbers to help resolve this once and until the next time...

Steve

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Note also the number of organisations banning rigger boots but continuing to allow safety shoes as an option.

Nuff said.

We are built to walk the deserts and hillsides without ankle support so why the emphasis on one form of footwear as opposed to all others. Boots hurt my ankles unless they come well up my calf and even then will not fit as they are designed for standard size/ circumference legs. Can people in my position not be discriminated against by persons who think of blanket bans based on probably poorly researched facts and who have no concept of finding the correct PPE for the person as is required by legislation.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Could we put outriggers and wheels on like kiddie bikes?:-)

Sorry to trivialise this, or perhaps not, but it does not seem to be a well researched area.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I actually think this arose out of a conflation of facts when Carillion were suspended from tendering for NR work. They had a number of ankle injuries at the time in June/July last year. To me it is likely that the Carillion reaction to the ban was to question whether the near universal use of rigger boots and the number of ankle injuries were linked, then presume that they were involved as a cause. BUT if most people wear rigger boots then most ankle injuries are likely to occcur with persons wearing rigger boots. That does not mean that rigger boots are a causal factor for ankle injuries. Simply stated x thousand exposures will always produce, statistically, more injuries than y hundred. Or am I totally off beam? Let us not forget that this item of footwear is almost universal on our sites.

Put simply almost all people on construction sites have two legs and almost all accidents occur to people with two legs, thus having two legs causes accidents and thus two legged people should be banned from sites. Where is our ability to analyse and balance evidence in all this?

Sorry for the off the wall example but the riduculousness needs to be addressed in all of these so called "safety measures". It is also the same thinking that states that safety harnesses should be used in scissor lifts to stop people climbing on handrails when proper supervision is the best answer. The right PPE for the right job at the right time - and PPE that suits the wearer.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Joe

As you would guess I am 100% with you on this. The ban it brigades need to start showing real evidence for their stance or we all risk being tarred with the bonkers conkers H&S label.

I actually put this discussion to a group of 30 operatives today and duly received the "You H&S people are all the same - over the top and interested only in your own navels". This debate seems to hit the same chord as ladder training to use stepladders to change a bulb methinks!

Bob