Enforcing hard hat use

[J Pearce]

They supply the hats, though I have suggested chin straps, as their hats do have the attachment points.

 

For the amount of work I do at that venue its not worth buying my own hard hat. Everywhere else supplies a hard hat when they are required, and don't enforce daft rules.

[Renny]

A hard hat will help if a colour frame or something light lands on you, ........................but it isn't going to be lot of good agaist a lantern.

 

Apparently not. If the bigger, nastier object lands vertically on the helmet, maybe.

The likely scenario is that the object strikes a glancing blow and the helmet reduces local impact.

The natural reaction in that situation is to instantly buckle/bend the knees and in conjunction with the local protection afforded by the helmet will significantly reduce the effect the object has on the body.

So wear one!

If the employer's system is that they are worn (provided they are of suitable design, fit the users, etc), you don't have the option.

 

I'm sure we've been here before.......

 

Eh? My original post advocates their use. I was just pointing out that people chouldn't become blase about PPE protecting them whatever.

[Gadget]

The real questions are:

 

Who is responsible for the liability insurance for anybody who is "working"?

What does that persons/entitys Risk assesment + Method Statement say?

Have the people who are chosing to disregard the advise laid out in the assesment signed a statement stating that they have read/been advise of the advice laid out in the RA+MS?

 

Does any person giving any advice have Indemnity insurance?

 

If you want my advice off the record, produce a RA+MS, get EVERYONE to sign a statment, on each job, saying they have read and understood it. All of this is required to validate your insurance. PPE is a personal choice. Just make a record of peoples choices.

 

Further to this, the easiest solution would be to deem the situation to be a worksite from the off until final dress and then you can ask anyone not complying with your stated regulations to leave the worksite. Your Regulations are not related to your RA+MS, however they may state the same things.

[Simon Lewis]

PPE is a personal choice. Just make a record of peoples choices.

 

Hi, Gadget,

 

Could you expand on this statement a little ? My understanding of the The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 may not be too comprehensive, but I don't think it takes this approach!

 

Curious...

 

Simon

[Cpt. Carling]

Sorry, but if you display a sign stating that PPE is Mandatory - as all building sites do, then all persons working on or passing through the work site are required to wear the prescribed PPE.

 

Health & Safety is the responsibility of everyone, dont think the HSE wont prosecute as many as they can in the event of an incident.

 

The statement above that its personal choice is wrong.

[digitalangel]

PPE is essential, but the best option is always prevention. People who aren't there cannot get injured.

If you are working at height, then there should be no reason for cast members to be in the area. They can't rehearse with access equipment in the way. Junior technicians can be a little more difficult, but if they are keen to join in, they are generally keen to learn whatever you have to teach them, including H&S. But even technical staff in the working area should be kept to the minimum number needed.

Also, safety breifings can work a treat, and give you a chance to lay down your expectations up front before any work starts. Much less confrontational than shouting from the top of the tower at them, and they have the opportunity to ask why things are done the way they are while not stressed/rushed etc.

[andy_s]

would be to deem the situation to be a worksite from the off until final dress and then you can ask anyone not complying with your stated regulations to leave the worksite.

 

the stage - in fact anywhere in a theatre - is a worksite full stop. at no time does it stop being a worksite. whenever the site is occupied, someone is working - whether for pay or not.

 

what affects the use or otherwise of ppe is the task being carried out at any given time. Clearly it's not appropriate to wear a hard hat in a performance (apart from village people tribute bands perhaps), but neither should there be any activity overhead which might result in falling objects.

 

I'd also join with others in stating the the "personal" bit of PPE does not imply choice. If the task requires it, the employer / organiser should provide it, and the worker use it.

[lightsource]

A few years a go I worked in a factory environment, which was split in to two areas, assembly and stores. In the stores dept, there were there was row after row of shelving over 10m high, stacking some very heavy equipment ( think of 10,000 10mm drill bits in a metal bin). There were three types of fork lift trucks operating in this area.

 

At the end of each row of shelves, there was a big hard hat sign, and a hard hat available for use. Not once in the three years did I ever see anyone wearing one, with the odd exception of external contractors who visited the site. Not only that, but the stores personnel were also required to wear safety shoes, which very rarely happened.

 

The point is, that in various previous posts, it's one thing to have RA, H&S and all the rest, but it's the enforcement that is the problem, and this is the barrier that causes the accidents.

 

In the three years I worked there, we had a picker truck fall over, while the driver was 5m in the air (he was off work for 3 months, and never set foot in a fork lift since)

 

A fork lift truck run over the feet of a storeman who wasn't wearing safety shoes (he left the company soon after and now walks with a stick)

 

A person killed in an autopal (robotic pallet stacker)

 

Yet this compant had a safety officer and a H&S policy, problem was, it was ignored

[Dominicg]

That video is rather amusing but drives home, wear your hard hat.

[lightsource]

:o Actually the only point that suggests hard hat use is in the knife in the head sequence, what safety feature would a hard hat give to a person who is sliced in half by a sheet of steel, and then gobbled by a chainsaw eh! eh! reply ... reply! :blink:

 

edit: yes that was a P155take

[paulears]

Of course wearing PPE is a personal choice, you don't HAVE to wear it, but the employer doesn't HAVE to employ you. If the people who pay the bills make a rule - everyone has a choice as to what they then do.

[lightsource]

but the employer doesn't HAVE to employ you.

 

This was a major problem where I worked. We had a lot of temp workers who were too afraid to 'shout up'

[David Ripley]

Of course wearing PPE is a personal choice, you don't HAVE to wear it, but the employer doesn't HAVE to employ you. If the people who pay the bills make a rule - everyone has a choice as to what they then do.

 

I hate to be pedantic but...

 

Firstly the Personal bit in PPE means it is for the use of a person, not that they own it or have any choice as to whether to use it or not

 

Secondly the legal bit goes like this. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs (MHSWR), Risk Assessments are required. If the risk assessment indicates PPE is the only reasonably practicable solution, after eliminating the other 4 steps, then under the PPE regs appropriate kit must be supplied, free of charge, by the employer. Remember though PPE is a last resort, there are plenty of other avenues to explore before just dishing out hard hats etc

 

The employer has a duty to enforce this, on the other hand the employee has a duty to comply and cooperate. If either side ignores this they are in breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSAW) and liable to prosecution. Remember there doesn't have to be an accident, you just have to have it proved that 'on the balance of probability' you were in breach for a conviction in a civil court. So you DO have to wear it if it is a requirement for the task.

 

The quote about getting people to sign out PPE then if they don't use it it's their look out is nonsense and has been since 1974.

 

As regards the OP, back to basics, what does the RA say? The first thing to do is to create an exclusion zone so that people cannot get into the area where the danger is. Then you won't require the PPE! See above for arguments to use with those who know better.

 

AmDrams often think, actually much like many pros, that H&S regs don't apply as they aren't being paid. The legal term is 'working for reward' so the reward for AmDrams is enjoyments, social pleasure etc, just as for students the reward is the educational qualification. This makes the legislation pretty catch-all

 

HTH

 

David Ripley

(someone with an H&S qualifiacation)