Posted By Alan Haynes
Network Rail does not allow their contractors on NR sites wearing Rigger Boots - something about adequate ankle support I think.

Some large contractors with NR contracts are now tending to impose a total ban on Rigger Boots [for consistency] across alltheir sites, including the non-NR ones

Posted By Brian Dunckley
Network Rail have issued an amended PPE policy applicable from 03/12/05,
stating that safety footwear must provide ankle support, this rules out rigger
boots. Their are exceptions fpr working in mud, water or snow and for welders.

This requirement for ankle protection has been mandatory since December 2003.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
There is a considerable difference in the performance of the ankle support that I have with my Scarpa SL mountain boots and my lace up workplace safety boots. The Scarpa boot is very rigid; however in comparison the sides of my workplace boots are very soft and arguably provide very little ankle support.

From a Google search, I cannot find any hard research evidence to show that lace up workplace safety boots do provide a greater degree of ankle support.

Is this another safety myth that has become fact or can anyone enlighten me as to the research behind this policy?

Indecently the cost of my mountain boots is the equivalent of at least ten pairs of the cheaper safety boots.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
They couldn't wear them.
No toe protection, no sole protection.
And another reason for wearing rigger boots is that they are cheap...and since my firm only allows £33.00 every six months for protective shoes/boots and since the lace-up boots available for that price are crap, people go for the riggers.

Lets see now....from the ground up...I wear boots, flameproof coveralls, flameproof neck protection, ear protection, eye protection and head protection (flameproof)....include fully enclosing RPE with air pump.....

In summer I can hardly breathe and work is painful...I'm not allowed shorts...or "T" shirt...and the factory has no forced ventilation so perspiration saturation is a fact of life...
and people wonder why getting recruits for manufacturing is hard ?
And the building industry is the same....

Posted By Andy Petrie
NR have banned them as they give no ankle support, this leads me to believe that they are worried about people going over and twisting their ankles. Given the majority of work they do is out on track, where there is a real risk you can stumble or fall then it sounds reasonable.

If you workplace doesn't have the same level of trip/slip hazards then you are probably more than fine to continue with your rigger boots. Do a risk assessment and decide for yourself.

Posted By Brett Day
Horses for courses, lots of walking over uneven ground I've found that they are not the best for ankle support and working on LUL they were looking to ban them as a result of ankle injuries on uneven ballast and trackside areas.

BUT

Have found them great for when it's muddy and wet, very few safety boots (lace up) have any semblance of waterproofing, I do have a pair of very good lace up boots - fully waterproof (sympatex lining, with a fully sown in tongue) (Hi Tec Magnums, as issued to the police) but even shopping around the cheapest I could get them for was 70 quid so how are companies going to provide a waterproof pair of lace ups when they are looking at 20-30 quid a pair ???

Posted By John Murgatroyd
This may be largely irrelevant, but most guys with high-lace boots (the ones that HAVE ankle support, the ordinary type have little) don't use the top laces at all. If you look at them the laces are only threaded through the lower holes and are looped around the top of the boot.
In any case, HSE spend so much money and time researching stupid things like BOOTS that it isn't any surprise they have none left for inspections of premises. Don't forget, these are the guys who spent a small fortune trying to find out why team lifting was more dangerous than single person lifting......

Posted By Michael Edwards
The same theory went through the Australian mining industry around about 18 months ago and is now being demanded (according to industry gossip) on all Shell petroleum platforms and other major players in the North Sea.
The argument (I was led to belive when I was told in Oz) was based on an assessment of ankle injuries by an Adelaide university study. A comaprison was made between the types of boots worn versus severity of the outcome, with the response being to ban all non ankle height lace up boots.
So what is better? Do we allow people to wear riggers boots and potentially suffer injuries that result in more time off, or do we enforce the leace up boots issue and thus lead to greater problems in wet and icy conditions?. A twisted ankle will result in a strain/sprain or at most a fracture. A fall from own height after slipping on wet surfaces can result in the same plus more depending on the scenario you wish to imagine.
Then again a twisted ankle whilst carrying a load may be even more dangerous.
So have we got a case of someone being a bit over reactive?
I am not arguing for or against. I wear lace up ankle high boots as a personal preference though I may don a pair of riggers boots and go for a stroll out on deck for a week to see how they perform.
Maybe we can find some undergrads to do a study that looks at the whole issue rather than a limited examination of ankle injuries.

Regards,

Michael

Posted By Cr8r
Surely there is a glaring niche in the market here - lace up rigger boots! Would this be a happy marriage I wonder? (They might look a bit like chunky wrestling boots!!!)

Nice.

Posted By Brendon Vagg


Can anyone within NR or any other organisation help me in obtaining some factual info on this matter? either the Paper from Adelaide Uni or a contact with NR?

Thanks


Brendon

Posted By John Webster
Whoa! I thought I had seen the end of that old myth about 20 years ago. How can boots filling with water drag anyone down when they are in the water??

They used to tell me rigger boots were preferred offshore so that if you fell overboard you could kick them off "to avoid being dragged down when they filled with water". It's actually better to keep them on to help retain heat.

The real reason for the preference was much more practical.

Accommodation, offices, control rooms and a dirty workplace are in close proximity. Having an easy slip on and off boot ensures that they are always removed when entering clean areas.

Posted By Peter MacDonald
Sorry to flog a dead horse but.....

I'm breaking in my new lace up boots (anti static / plastic toe/ midsole) and due to the previous years of wearing Rigger boots my soft flesh is reddening and starting to bleed (just a little). Should I report this as a work related injury? I'm worried that this may precipitate a change in compnay footware requirements due to an upturn in the injury frequency (body part:feet,subsection heels/ankles) statistics.

Or should I pee and sleep in them till they're soft. (like the SAS do)

Posted By Andrew Brown
All very interesting but out of 25 replies and over 2500 views no one has come up with any evidence to support this point of view. I can do the risk assessment but i feel its a bit subjective without the research or accident statistics to back it up.

I was in a safety meeting yesterday and we were discussing whether rigger boots should be allowed on an upcoming project.

Another major player National Grid (as was Transco) is apparently now insisting on ankle support boots on its onshore gas installations.

I am now charged with finding out whether there is any justification for adopting such a policy. Everyone else is doing it, so we should too is not good enough. if you know the answer please put us out of our misery.