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
Sarah Yates  
#1 Posted : 15 November 2023 11:12:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Sarah Yates

When working on a Mobile Elevated Work platform, with no one working above them, should the operatives be wearing hard hats with chin straps? 

firesafety101  
#2 Posted : 15 November 2023 11:26:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Yes, reason is the MEWP can easily be moved, lowered and raised which means heads can contact roof members when rising.  Also if/when work is being done from the platform above the worker's own head. 

thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
Sarah Yates on 15/11/2023(UTC)
Holliday42333  
#3 Posted : 15 November 2023 11:33:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Holliday42333

The caveat I'd add is that you wont find this in any 'Law', as per the thread title.

Thats just not how H&S Law works in the UK

thanks 2 users thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
Sarah Yates on 15/11/2023(UTC), andrewhopwood on 18/12/2023(UTC)
peter gotch  
#4 Posted : 15 November 2023 16:04:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Sarah

There are two issues here:

1. Should they have a helmet?

2. If yes to that, should it have a chin strap?

The risk assessment should enable the appropriate answer to both questions (and more).

The first part of that assessment is about what type of MEWP.

In broad terms you have scissor lifts which only move up and down (though most can also travel, but generally shouldn't do so when the platform is elevated).

....and then there are the MEWPs with booms which can go in multiple directions.

So, if you have a scissor lift and there is nothing above, may be there is NO risk of e.g. striking roof members, so perhaps the only thing likely to land on the head is a falling meteorite, the risk of which is usually going to be so negligible as to mean that the helmet is probably OTT - though MIGHT well be a site wide blanket rule.

Much more scope for the head to be struck or to strike something else when in a "cherry picker" BUT a typical industrial helmet is only designed to protect against falling objects, not LATERAL impacts.

....a large scale study in the US in the 1980s concluded that over 60% of head injuries in construction were to parts of the head OTHER than the crown, so the typical industrial helmet provides little, if any, protection against those 60%.

[HSE's lab people, HSL published a report that quotes the US study at about the time the long since revoked Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 came into force]

So, may be what they should be using is higher spec helmets with absorptive materials between the harness and helmet shell. [A typical helmet relies on an air gap between the crown of the shell and the harness to absorb the residual force of an object dropping to the helmet and penetrating the shell - so for added protection you replace that air gap with absorptive material not only to the top  but also to each side- so similar to helmets used by e.g. firefighters, motorcyclists and mountain climbers].

Second question - in most scenarios a chin strap will NOT provide the user with any significant protection. It is often put forward as providing protection should somebody fall from e.g. a cherry picker but it won't make a lot of difference if somebody falls say 6m and smashes their head with or without helmet against the ground or some hard object on the way.

What the chin strap DOES do is provide protection to others who might be at risk if the helmet comes off. 

So as example it is mandated on works on high speed roads - helmet flying off presents a risk to passing traffic.

Research@92  
#5 Posted : 11 December 2023 10:43:31(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Research@92

After reviewing available guidance on the matter, here is my perspective as a consultant working at Ruskin Felix Consulting

When operating Mobile Elevated Work Platforms (MEWPs), safety should always be the top priority. According to UK regulations, head protection is not legally required for MEWP operators working alone without anyone above them.

However, from RFC's standpoint, it is still prudent to wear a hard hat with a chin strap as an extra layer of protection. While accidents are rare, any work at height carries inherent risks from falling objects or other hazards. Wearing head protection can also reinforce a strong safety culture in the workplace.

Some additional factors RFC considers include:

  • Terrain under/around the MEWP (uneven, debris etc. increase risk of falling)

  • Weather conditions like high winds which could suddenly move the platform

  • Potential for overhead work to begin above the operator

  • Setting a consistent example for others onsite

  • Hard hats are a low-cost insurance against severe head injuries

On balance, our that is - RFC's view - is that donning hard hats should be treated as standard practice by MEWP operators, even if not strictly mandated. Safety should never be compromised just because regulations permit it.

Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 11 December 2023 11:17:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Perhaps RFC's consultant could explain why they would wish to "gold plate" site practices in PPE and more correctly why they seem unable to clearly distinguish between personal and corporate position.

For example what are these falling objects above MEWP - Aircraft, birds that die in flight (naturally or otherwise), Dorothy's House (Wizard of Oz) and other wind carried debris?

Do the consultant/RFC consider risk suitably controlled if:

1) Weather conditions move the MEWP given that would be a failure to consider the potental impact of weather upon the task during assessment of risk.

2) Overhead works beginning above the operator again further failure not only in considering risk but also in co-operation and co-ordination of site activity.

Hard Hats are not a low cost insurance against head injuries - most MEWP operators would gain greater benefit from bump caps than a deflection device - in both cases it is less about the bump on the head and more about the impact strain through the neck and shoulders from either contact with a stationary object such as the underside of a roof or impact from a falling tool or insecure item above the work location.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 11/12/2023(UTC), peter gotch on 11/12/2023(UTC), andrewhopwood on 18/12/2023(UTC), Kate on 11/12/2023(UTC), peter gotch on 11/12/2023(UTC), andrewhopwood on 18/12/2023(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 11 December 2023 11:17:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Perhaps RFC's consultant could explain why they would wish to "gold plate" site practices in PPE and more correctly why they seem unable to clearly distinguish between personal and corporate position.

For example what are these falling objects above MEWP - Aircraft, birds that die in flight (naturally or otherwise), Dorothy's House (Wizard of Oz) and other wind carried debris?

Do the consultant/RFC consider risk suitably controlled if:

1) Weather conditions move the MEWP given that would be a failure to consider the potental impact of weather upon the task during assessment of risk.

2) Overhead works beginning above the operator again further failure not only in considering risk but also in co-operation and co-ordination of site activity.

Hard Hats are not a low cost insurance against head injuries - most MEWP operators would gain greater benefit from bump caps than a deflection device - in both cases it is less about the bump on the head and more about the impact strain through the neck and shoulders from either contact with a stationary object such as the underside of a roof or impact from a falling tool or insecure item above the work location.

thanks 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 11/12/2023(UTC), peter gotch on 11/12/2023(UTC), andrewhopwood on 18/12/2023(UTC), Kate on 11/12/2023(UTC), peter gotch on 11/12/2023(UTC), andrewhopwood on 18/12/2023(UTC)
peter gotch  
#8 Posted : 11 December 2023 17:40:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Research@92

Perhaps where you write from some geography where PPE is the first line of defence.

Legally this is a wholly inappropriate way to manage risks in the UK and EU where the requirements are to apply the General Principles of Prevention.

You might need to get your AI to look those up.

Edited by user 12 December 2023 14:34:53(UTC)  | Reason: Omitted words so as to make sentence somewhat meaningless

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Kate on 11/12/2023(UTC), andrewhopwood on 18/12/2023(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.