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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 29 September 2005 22:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kinnikin All, We have a situation where we have assessed the risk of pedestrians being clouted by FLTs and (more so)powered pallett trucks and have decided that people should wear Hi Vis Jackets in the factory. The problem is that the same people are also reequired to go and service our production lines. This sets the magic eye sensors off as they react to the shiny stripes on the jackets. They have to service the lines too often to take the Hi Vis off every time. So far some of the people turn their jacket inside out (no relective stripes).Some have started to wear Hi Vis T shirts (in that they are 'day glow' yellow coloured again with no shiny stripes. My question is: If they have to wear Hi Vis (by risk assessment) are we allowed to use the Tshirts in this way as they do not comply with the PPE Regs (Neither class 1,2 or 3) Is it acceptable to wear the Jackets inside out? All the Production lines are inside and none of the people have to go outside so all the Hi Vis is required to do is protect them when inside the building. I have suggested that the sensors should be looked at as a solution but I am meeting resistance as the people view the current practice as adequate. Any Thoughts?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 30 September 2005 07:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tyler Kinnikin, It is my understanding that there is no hard and fast rules that says you cannot select PPE that does not comply to a certain specification. Just for Information. The specification for Hi Vis Clothing is BS EN 471:2003. However, if someone should have an accident, or an Inspector calls you will have to justify why you decided to select PPE that does not meet the specification. In my opinion, "because it sets off the magic eye sensors" will fall some way short of a valid reason. However, I stand to be corrected. The Inspectors (and Lawyers) may well ask you why you have reduced the effectiveness of the PPE (by turning the jackets inside out and/or wearing day glow T-shirts instead) if, as you say, the risk assessment suggests the PPE is required? In other words, why have you compromised safety for convenience? All in all, I would say the practice you describe should be discouraged, otherwise you could find yourself with a lot of convincing to do. I hope this helps Tyler
Admin  
#3 Posted : 30 September 2005 12:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter If your risk assessment identifies a significant risk of collision. PPE is surely not a primary means of eliminating or reducing the risk!PPE is to be considered as the last resort! A proper system of traffic management with segregation,barriers etc is surely more appropriate. I suggest you revisit the initial risk assessment before you look further on the hi-viz issue.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 30 September 2005 14:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kinnikin Ron, Thanks for that. I am aware that PPE is the last line of defence etc. However the situation is such that we have done all that is reasonably practicable and we still require the use of Hi Vis (belt and braces perhaps but better safe than sorry and all that). The question is... Is it okay to drop below the BS EN specification if PPE is required? Tyler, Thanks for your response. You seem to concur wih my thinking on this. Does anyone else agree / dis agree? Thanks Kinnikin
Admin  
#5 Posted : 30 September 2005 21:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barry Cooper Kinnikin We have had the same problem,we allowed personnel to wear hi-vis T-shirts without reflective bands, together with other traffic management controls. We also adjusted the photocells to prevent them being activated by the reflective stripes. The need to meet the standard for reflective clothing was mainly for use on the highways, our risk assessment decided that hi-vis T-shirts provided adequate protection.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 October 2005 23:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kinnikin Barry, Thanks for your response. It seems you agree with our thinking on this. Does anyone know of a supplier of Hi Vis vests without the reflective stripes (instead of the day glow T-Shirts)? Thanks again, Kinnikin
Admin  
#7 Posted : 11 October 2005 09:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kinnikin All, Further to my last request. I was watching football the other day and noticed some of the subs were wearing Hi Vis bibs as they were warming up. Will these suffice in my scenario? If so where woiuld we get them from? Thanks Kinnikin
Admin  
#8 Posted : 11 October 2005 21:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barry Cooper Kinnikin Try BAC2 SAFETY Brian Cassidy (Tel; 01254 675876) He can get anything.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 12 October 2005 07:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RP Hi-Vis is related to the amount of florecent material (main colour) shown by the garment in m2. The 'shinny strips' are realy only intended to make the wearer stand out at night, take it the workplace is well lit. So the strips are redundent for daytime working. Suppliers can make these garments without the stripes. The cost of changing the sensors should be considered against the risks. T-Shirt style is acceptable provided it carried the EN471 class 2 label.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.