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
LATCHY  
#1 Posted : 17 February 2013 09:55:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LATCHY

I have noticed on my travels that due to the cold weather site operatives are wearing woolly bob caps under their hard hats, would it be advisable to point out to such operatives that this is bad practice and alters the dynamics of the hard hat or let such practice continue. Advise please.
Merv  
#2 Posted : 17 February 2013 10:53:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Merv

I can't see it making any significant difference, no more than a thick head of hair. So long as there isn't a bobble on top Some companies actually issue balaclava helmets. Merv
paulrun26  
#3 Posted : 17 February 2013 11:02:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
paulrun26

merv wrote:
I can't see it making any significant difference, no more than a thick head of hair. So long as there isn't a bobble on top Some companies actually issue balaclava helmets. Merv
Morning, It does make a difference Merv. Hard hats can be adjusted to suit most 'thick-heads-of hair'. Wearing anything underneath a hat means it is not fitted, adjusted, worn according to the manufacturers instructions and consequently dangerous. As you mention, manufacturers do make a hard hat liner, specific for this purpose and can be clipped to the hat itself. About £8-9 each iirc. A hard hat can be a piece of unforgiving ppe on a cold and frosty building site; better than an injured head. Many PC's ban the wearing of 'Hoodie' hoods and wooly hats for these reasons. Paul.
RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 17 February 2013 18:39:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

If you want to make yourself really unpopular then ban them...I am not convinced that there is a problem wearing woolly hats under a hard hat. All this baloney about the dynamics of the hard hat - don't make me laugh. As long as the hard hat is sitting comfortably on the person's head there is not a problem, indeed any object which falls onto the hat will be partially cushioned by the woolly hat. Wearing hoodies is a different issues altogether. The reasons hoodies are banned is because they can restrict vision - nothing more and nothing less.
David H  
#5 Posted : 17 February 2013 19:00:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

We use "zero hoods" which are a lining within the hard hat with the facility to attach a zipped scarf / curtain to protect the neck and lower face. Good enough for offshore David
Zimmy  
#6 Posted : 17 February 2013 20:23:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zimmy

Good enough for offshore is good enough for me Rob
bob youel  
#7 Posted : 18 February 2013 07:35:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

There is also an insurance angle here as an insurer may not pay out thus leaving a company exposed where none specific head wear e.g. woolly hats are worn and there is an event I say use specifically manufactured head protection such as the off-shore stuff - problem being is that companies do not want to pay for such kit
John J  
#8 Posted : 18 February 2013 10:33:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John J

bob youel wrote:
There is also an insurance angle here as an insurer may not pay out thus leaving a company exposed where none specific head wear e.g. woolly hats are worn and there is an event I say use specifically manufactured head protection such as the off-shore stuff - problem being is that companies do not want to pay for such kit
Bob, I'll have to respectfully disagree. There is no EN standard for helmet liners and insurers would not pursue this as a contributory factor unless they wanted to end up with a very expensive legal bill. I've also drawn out a few types of helmets from our stores and can find no manufacturers reference to restriction on wearing anything between the suspension and the head. Regards, John
Andrew Bober  
#9 Posted : 18 February 2013 10:47:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Andrew Bober

John J wrote:
bob youel wrote:
There is also an insurance angle here as an insurer may not pay out thus leaving a company exposed where none specific head wear e.g. woolly hats are worn and there is an event I say use specifically manufactured head protection such as the off-shore stuff - problem being is that companies do not want to pay for such kit
Bob, I'll have to respectfully disagree. There is no EN standard for helmet liners and insurers would not pursue this as a contributory factor unless they wanted to end up with a very expensive legal bill. I've also drawn out a few types of helmets from our stores and can find no manufacturers reference to restriction on wearing anything between the suspension and the head. Regards, John
It does sound like quite an interesting one. From a climbing prespective the BMC have good gudiance on this - such as http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=629 or http://www.thebmc.co.uk/...s/TCM0410_DMM_Ascent.pdf - and have a technical committee who work with manufacturers on issues such as the one posed. This does make me think that maybe it is a question which is best posed to manufacturers. Is this something which the Research Committee at IOSH could explore? B
Phil Grace  
#10 Posted : 18 February 2013 10:54:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

Just to clarify this “insurance angle”. The EL (Compulsory Insurance) Act prohibits insurers from placing any restrictive conditions on Employers’ Liability insurance. Thus insurers can not, for example, make the payment of a claim conditional upon the employer’s conformance with regulations or H&S law. The purpose of this insurance is to ensure that injured employees receive compensation when their employer is found negligent. In theory it would be possible for an insurer to pay the claim and then sue the employer to recover… this is very, very rare and I can not recall this happening in “living memory”. And to further clarify, the compensation paid may be reduced if it is found that the employee contributed, in some way to the incident or extent of injuries. This is the principle of contributory negligence – but this is outside the scope of the EL Insurance Act/Regs. Phil
Andrew Bober  
#11 Posted : 18 February 2013 11:28:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Andrew Bober

Phil Grace wrote:
Just to clarify this “insurance angle”. The EL (Compulsory Insurance) Act prohibits insurers from placing any restrictive conditions on Employers’ Liability insurance. Thus insurers can not, for example, make the payment of a claim conditional upon the employer’s conformance with regulations or H&S law. The purpose of this insurance is to ensure that injured employees receive compensation when their employer is found negligent. In theory it would be possible for an insurer to pay the claim and then sue the employer to recover… this is very, very rare and I can not recall this happening in “living memory”. And to further clarify, the compensation paid may be reduced if it is found that the employee contributed, in some way to the incident or extent of injuries. This is the principle of contributory negligence – but this is outside the scope of the EL Insurance Act/Regs. Phil
Phil's points are spot on re. EL (and PL). The issue re. compensation paid may be reduced if it is found that the employee contributed, in some way to the incident or extent of injuries (contributory negligence), is one which would have to be technically demonstrated. The following case is a good example re. hard hats: http://www.scotcourts.go...pinions/2008csoh40.html. I think in the case where we are speculating on whether wearing a beanie hat underneath would adversely affect the integrity of the hard hat, is one of speculation. The wall we have hit is the need for technical data re. this, where this has been either tested to prove it is or isn’t an impact. The insurers would face a similar situation should they focus in on this issue as well. However, it does make me wonder that given the habit of people wearing beanies/hoodies under their hard-hats whether that this technical data does exist somewhere. Would access my post-grad library access to technical database to check, but the internet isn’t presently letting me. If I do find any papers I will post lines up. B
Andrew Bober  
#12 Posted : 18 February 2013 15:59:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Andrew Bober

Came across the BS for Safety Hats http://pozhproekt.ru/nsi...afety/BS-EN-397-1995.pdf Thought maybe dropping a line through to the International Safety Equipment Association (now the Safety Equipment Distributors’ Association is no longer) with the line to this thread to see if they are familair with any research which they'd care to share on the subject.
David H  
#13 Posted : 18 February 2013 20:14:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

John J - the liners are flame retadant and registered to EN 531 standard (flame retardant) Link attached (other suppliers available) http://www.outlandsales....p/1376/1/hard_hat_liners David
FloorTester  
#14 Posted : 18 February 2013 20:57:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
FloorTester

Good thread - I was wondering about colours. Can I use a yellow Hard hat on the railways? I've got a job for Network Rail next week and was wondering whether I need to buy another (white?) hat?
John J  
#15 Posted : 19 February 2013 08:37:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John J

David H wrote:
John J - the liners are flame retadant and registered to EN 531 standard (flame retardant) Link attached (other suppliers available) http://www.outlandsales....p/1376/1/hard_hat_liners David
Not all of them and I think your splitting hairs being as the thread is about the effects of impact not fire.
RayRapp  
#16 Posted : 19 February 2013 09:35:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Floortester You can only wear blue or white hard hats on NWR, blue for recently qualified PTS holders. I presume from your question you will be using a Visitors Permit - still a blue hard hat.
chris42  
#17 Posted : 19 February 2013 09:49:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Ref #16 Also make sure it is the correct shade of Blue !
FloorTester  
#18 Posted : 19 February 2013 10:59:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
FloorTester

RayRapp wrote:
Floortester You can only wear blue or white hard hats on NWR, blue for recently qualified PTS holders. I presume from your question you will be using a Visitors Permit - still a blue hard hat.
Thanks Ray, yes I'll be doing some pendulum testing on a Visitor's permit for Network Rail. So looks like a new hat for me !!
achrn  
#19 Posted : 19 February 2013 17:07:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

chris42 wrote:
Ref #16 Also make sure it is the correct shade of Blue !
Not strictly necessary - Network Rail Level 2 standard NR/L2/OHS/021 Issue 3 requires any contractor (or employee of NR) on or near the line or on the lineside to wear a safety helmet that complies with BS EN 397: 1995. The safety helmet shall be white in colour, except where the wearer is accessing Network Rail infrastructure under: a Track Visitors Permit (TVP); a Personal Track Safety (PTS) card with a 'green square' symbol on it; or Network Rail Standard Maintenance Procedure NR/PRC/MTC/SE0089, New Starters Mentoring (Passport Scheme). Where any of these conditions apply, the safety helmet shall be blue in colour (PANTONE 2935c). NOTE 1: A shade similar to PANTONE 2935c blue may also be used if the safety helmet manufacturer selected cannot provide this exact shade. It's the note 1 that you want to notice. Although having said that, although the standard makes it clear it doesn't need to be an exact match, we have had NR people refuse access to operatives wearing blue hats that were (in his view) the wrong blue, so for the sake of an easy life, it's worth trying to make it as close to the right blue as you can get.
chris42  
#20 Posted : 19 February 2013 17:27:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

achrn Yes I was aware and have encountered the same issue, I just decided to try and use less words than normal. The long and short is, not any blue will do. Also sadly other non rail organisations use blue for their supervisors (so the exact opposite). Nothing like joined up thinking is there.
Andrew Bober  
#21 Posted : 20 February 2013 14:40:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Andrew Bober

I have dropped a line through to International Safety Equipment Association in hope that they can provide some sort of insight and advice on this.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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.