Morning. As per the title, I have an Excavator Operator who has producded a Medical Exception certifcate from wearing a seat belt in his 20tn excavtor. This is the first time I've come accross this siutation. All my intution is pointing towards an inherntant need for a seat belt to be worn in an excavtor due to the high risk and potentional for an overturn. I'd be greatful for your opinions which will help me form my own decision.

Many Thanks

Sean Edit: The Excavtor Spec is as follows -  ​​​​​​​https://www.ridgwayrentals.com/plant-hire/komatsu-pc228-excavator/

Komatsu PC228LC Excavator

The Komatsu PC228 Excavator ensures maximum productivity and control when room is tight.

• Safe SpaceCab™
• ROPS compliant
• EU Stage V engine 
• Rear view camera
• Optimal jobsite safety
• Safe access, easy maintenance
• Falling Object Protection System (FOPS) optional

Edited by user 27 March 2024 10:46:41(UTC)  | Reason: Added spec

You dont mention the style of excavator (particularly the cab arrangement - roll cage, open sided etc.)

Ive actually spent a fair amount of time using 20t excavators and still train CPCS Plant tickets.

I have actually come across this before only for a 3 month period tho, where we had to risk assess an individual who we deemed safe but with restrictions which was very strict.

• No Lifting with excavator (which you actually need specific training seperate for)
• No works on graidents.
• No muckaway works.

Basically all works must be completed on a level area and with a banksman at all times.

After all this the Principle Contractor would not let them work.

Like i stated, the individual was very competent but if site says no its a no.

I could not pass a new operator who was unable to wear a seatbelt if that helps?

I might come off bad for this one, but I have always been of the view that person cannot be medically exempt from a safety control measure. I understand the need to make reasonable adjustments, but if one person doesn't need to wear a seat belt, then surely this would apply to everyone else as there has been deemed no risk.

I used to get this a lot with "I'm medically exempt from wearing safety boots, so i'm wearing trainers". The risk hasn't magically disapeared. 

There are controls and controls.

It has been proven seatbelts save lives yet the law permits medical exemption on the public highway.

It has been proven "crash" helmets save lives the law permits Sikh's to ride motorbikes in turbans.

In construction hard hats prevent injury yet the law specifically permitted Sikh's in turbans exemption.

Too often we gold plate what is actually necessary and then decide it must become the minimum standard.