Posted By Glen Coe You have probably seen this before, but it helps clarify on restraint and a clear bit about working near water, where a life jacket is required instead of a harness. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc614.pdf

Posted By Seamus O Sullivan Hi Just a question, what types of tyres are on a sissors lift, foam filled, air Or solid, if a tyre burst and the guy had no harness clipped on, could s/he fall out? or even with a sudden & partial failure of the mechanism, could this cause the occupant to fallout? would a harness help? I dont know the answer but is this a possibilty. Also I noticed in a sissors life recently, there were 3 points to clip on to. any views seamus

Posted By CFT Agree with Martin, solid and non-marking or marking. CFT

Posted By Ron Hunter All the answers are in BS 8460:2005 "Safe use of MEWPS a Code of Practice" - Sections 6.5 & 6.6 in particular. This standard does make it clear that where there is a risk of falling or ejection (generally collision risks)then the most suitable type of work restraint system is an adjustable lanyard adjusted to be as short as possible. Boom type MEWPs are seen as a particular risk, scissor types less so. Working on or near water then raises an interesting dilemma! I guess you would have to eliminate the collision risks? I wouldn't fancy sinking with the toppled MEWP!

Posted By steve e ashton Just a little surprised that no-one seems to have commented on the fact that a shock absorbing lanyard is part of a fall arrest system. A restraint lanyard is designed to prevent a fall - and should not have a shock absorber... Or am I missing the point altogether? I suggest your contractors could write to the clients and ask for the instructions to be re-written by someone competent to understand the risks and precautions? Steve

Posted By Robert K Lewis CFT Could not resist a comment yet again. I think that any PC that wishes to make up these rules ought to take on full responsibility for designing and approving the safe method of work. I can probably name a number of the major players who insist on this and it is time that the safety personnel in these organisations actually stopped the practice of insisting on imposing standards on subcontractors that have no basis in any HSE guidance. It is the old belt and braces argument I am afraid that is resurfacing. For me belts encourage climbing on handrails as operatives think they are "safe". Being thrown out when traversing rough ground was mentioned. Any PC who does not adequately prepared the ground for the equipment to traverse needs to be regarded as incompetent in my book. Scissor lifts are NOT designed for all terrain use in spite of the attitude of many site and project managers. I am with the poster - let us get rid of this nonsense once and for all. I have no issues with boom and beanstalk equipment but scissor lifts I simply cannot envisage a situation where restraint is ever required. Even level surfaces, lowering platform to below the critical height, as dictated by the automatic traverse cut off switch, means no catapaulting effect. That feels better:-) Bob