Posted By Mitch Ade, I think this has been discussed on this forum recently, however consider the situation of the wearer sustaining head injuries whilst wearing a hard hat backwards (not the way it has been designed to be used otherwise the liner and outer casing would be symmetrical). What would the wearers, and the supervisors position be in a court of law? Very trendy practise but not particularly safe I would suggest. Mitch

Posted By Mitch Dave, Very concise, but is that a yes or no? Mitch

Posted By Mitch Thanks, I thought that but I do struggle with words greater than 1 syllable! Not being a "brickie" I cannot understand why someone would put a peaked hard hat on backwards doesn't it chafe your neck?

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Not so much for brickies, but surveyors often find that a peak can obstruct the view when using the tools of their trade as well as restricting upward vision. Simple solution - specify a hard hat without a peak if it is not needed, there are plenty on the market.

Posted By Ron Hunter Not acceptable. The peak of the hat is there to stop dust and light debris falling into the eyes/face. An assessment of need (as required by the PPE Regs) would confirm this risk on most construction sites. Surveyors can be issued with a hard hat with a reduced peak - this helps prevent display of a bad example which the more impressionable tend to follow. You really need to play hardball on this one.

Posted By Dave Merchant "...as per Reg 10(2) of the PPE at Work Regs 1992" That no longer exists. The 2002 edition doesn't have that clause, as it was re-written to apply less to the user and more to the supplier, given the non-workplace users of PPE vastly outnumber the workplace ones. PUWER is as close as you'll get to "a law on how to use stuff at work", but where the C(HP) Regs apply they win.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze In my defence I give this link which has not yet been removed. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/S...2/Uksi_19922966_en_1.htm So to clarify the point, do the PPE Regs 2002 now supersede the PPE at Work Regs 1992, they look a totally different beast to me?

Posted By Gerry I thought that the 92 regs were still in force. They are still listed on the HSE legislation pages http://www.hse.gov.uk/le...tion/statinstruments.htm I am sure the 2002 regulations are concerned with the manufacture of ppe not it's use at work. Regards Gerry

Posted By Mitch Bingo! 2002 is part of the Consumer Protection legislation.

Posted By Angus232 What about H&S at Work Act Sections 7 and 8....misuse anything provided in the interests of health and safety etc.

Posted By Garry Adams Ade This is a horses for coerces issue, I can recall in the early days of the Construction of the Offshore Installations (mid-70s) the Scaffs and other Construction Workers wore our hats back to front then we started too cut the peaks off with a hawk saw... this was not malicious damage on our part, we were modifying our P.P.E. to suit our Task...the reduced peak gave us improved vision while erecting under deck Scaffolds and reduced head impacts on Steel beams ect...So my advise is to assess the task and issue the appropriate Head Protection...if its a fashion statement the Operatives want to make tell them to get a Job with Armani or Gucci. regards, Garry...

Posted By Dave Merchant I agree the legislation is confusing... I should've used the full titles in my original post as i was referring to the (EC Directive) Regs rather than the (at Work) regs. The PPE at Work Regs 1992 [PPEAW], now amended several times by everything from the Police Act to the 2002 Miscellaneous Amendments Regs, cover the concepts of "providing" and "enforcing use of" PPE. Because of bad timing, they arrived just before the PPE Directive stage 1 edit did, and so were almost instantly outdated in the way they handled *product* compliance and safety. The PPE (EC Directive) Regs 1992 [PPEEC] closed that hole, and defined that:- "...any question as to whether products to which the Directive applies are unsafe shall be determined in accordance with the Directive." This transfers _all_ product compliance, instructions and performance issues *from* PPEAW to PPEEC, and PPEEC has subsequently been amended over and over again, resulting in the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 [PPER]. It's no mistake that the 2002 version has a different title, and omits the words 'at work' - as it applies to products used anywhere and for any purpose, including personal and recreational. It also expands into some of the territory of PPEAW which isn't correctly mirrored in PUWER. Remember that despite the "consumer protection" title to the newer SIs, they all originate in amendments to PPEAW ad PUWER. The reason for the reclassification is that "consumer protection" covers both workplace AND personal users, but "health and safety" doesn't. PPEAW is, in effect, a backwater caused by Brussels updating something at the same time we tried to publish it into law. 75% of what it says is also in PUWER, and the rest is in PPER or the newer case-specific Regs such as COSHH, Control of Lead, Noise, etc. In terms of the topic of this thread, the question was not "Should a person be provided with a hat?" [covered by PPEAW and CHPR], or "Should that person be forced to wear the hat?" [PPEAW and PUWER], but instead it's "HOW can the person wear the hat?". _That_ is a PPER issue, as it relates to product safety compliance and modification, therefore takes the diversion to the PPER stream created by the quote above. {...goes to get another cup of coffee...}

Posted By Ron Hunter And after all of that Dave, I have to say I disagree with you! HOW can the person wear the hat? - Properly and in accordance with instruction and training. This is a work and workplace issue, entirely divorced from the PPER.

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Not really a response just an aside. The hard hat is similar to the baseball cap. The game of baseball is actually a summer time thing in the states. And, as such it is normally played in hot weather, therefore the hat is a means of protecting the player from the efect of the sun. OK so far, I'm getting to the point don't worry there is more. As the game of baseball is a summer game and the sun shines in the summer (well in America anyway) there is a risk of sun burn so the hat is often worn backwards to cover the back of the neck and prevent burning the back of the neck. Ok so far? Well it seems to me that the hard hat is similar as when you wear one backwards it offers protection to the back of the neck. Perhaps that is why some people especially those working on building sites tend to wear them backwards. Has anyone asked such peiople why they are wearing it backwards???

Posted By Dave Merchant It's worth noting that the design of construction-style safety hats in the EU is noticeably different to those used elsewhere. In the USA the symmetrical brim design is the most common (think of the old WW2 British Army helmet), as seen in every disaster movie since Towering Inferno. The plan is as you suggested - to protect the ears and neck from impacts as well as the face. In Asia and Japan, the peaks are often absent or minimized to the point they're no more than a curved rim, and goggles or visors used instead. The argument of a peak protecting the face fails miserably when your face is this shape though:- http://www.zoomergear.com/

Posted By Mitch Try this for a matching set http://www.rescuepetstor...m/pet-supplies-500V.html

Posted By Glyn Phillips Having read through this thread can I make the following comments. Several people have fallen into the same trap I did some time ago. The information on the OPSI web site is very good and I use it often. However, generally this site only provides the text as it was enacted. If you want the amended text of legislation try the UK Statute Law Database (a link from OPSI is available). This gives the amended text of legislation with additions and revocations annotated. On the left hand side of the OPSI web page, select Legislation, then select Revised. This saved me from a potentially embarassing situation recently when I was about to quote an incorrect clause to my CEO. Hope people find the site useful (its not my site moderators)

Posted By Mitch CFT-Good thread. CIS 50 clearly states (oops advises) that safety hats should be worn correctly and that "Safety comes before fashion" it also says that employees have a duty to wear PPE correctly and advises that they do not give proper protection when worn the wrong way round. Altering the inner cradle is also a modification of the original design & purpose. Source HSE.