Helmets

[Pete]

Compensation culture....But that's OT!

 

So have we decided when it's safe to stop wearing hard hats?As far as I can see once the Rig is in place focused etc and there is no more WAH to be done hard hats become unnecessary.

[mikienorth]

But, to throw a spanner in the works, what about loading and unloading trucks?

This takes place before and after any work with the potential to create falling objects (flying in general before the rig is focused and bars are brailed/breasted etc)

Things becoming unstable in trucks have and do cause head injuries.

I wear my helmet as much as I remember to. It is uncomfortable and really inconvienient, and I do admit to often 'forgetting' it.

 

But both in this industry and my previous line of work (construction) a hard hat has stopped something opening my skull.

 

In theatre I was up a lighting boom loosening a flying frame for a PA during a get out, I had my 'lid' on and the frame swung round, hitting my lid and just under it. Instead of being badly broken I had a small cut and a little bit of a dazed 10 minutes.

 

In construction I was up a ladder and a section of flooring was loosened above me by the labourers above. A breeze block fell two feet breaking in half across my hard hat, which was not too well after either, as weren't the grazes and scrapes on my shoulders.

I was at height in the area I was working in, and as such, according to the things said here people don't see the reason for wearing them when you are the highest person. I do.

 

In 9 years those are the only times a hard hat, 'lid', helmet or whatever you want to call it has proved its worth, but I wasn't expecting either of the events, I was wearing my 'lid' because I was in a hard hat zone.

 

If the area you are working in is declared a hard hat zone you should wear one. No exceptions.

 

In Construction this is enforced rigidly, "No Hat, No Boots, No Job" signs are now the norm, and this mentality, along with an induction for all people no matter who employs them at each site, detailing site specifics, has to be carried out before you can leave the 'safe zones' on the site. No attendance, no hat, no boots, and for one of those reasons you can be, and are thrown off the site. The inductions take 5 minutes frequently.

 

Why doesn't it happen in this industry? We say we are dangerous, and we are very similar in our H&S precautions and activities to the construction industry, so why do resident companies have no apparent control over the PPE precautions and enforcement of visiting companies and freelance trades apart from asking them to wear them, and not appearing bothered when they don't?

 

The operator of a building is just as liable as a company working within it when an incident happens, as was proven recently of a fashion in Birmingham. So why are we all so lax at enforcing certain rules yet have kittens when WAH gets mentioned? The HSE won't concentrate on one aspect of the work if they start to look closely, everything will be questioned.

[robloxley]

It may be a bit OT, but how many theatres enforce a 'steelies only' on stage rule?

[Chris Higgs]

Employer/self employed person assesses hazards in job.

Concludes that even after sensible planning and excluding people as much as possible, there is still a risk of some workers (only) being hit by falling somethings.

 

Hard hats of suitable design and standard provided with a little 10 minute talk about how to inspect them and who to tell if you lose/damage one.

Also time to remind employees and subbies ('cos they work for you...) that since you're the employer, they'd be in breach of terms and conditions if they don't use the PPE provided, and potentially negligent of their own simple duties in sections 7 and 8 of the HaSaWa.

 

Surely you need to design the work to avoid needing to use them as much as possible, and the need for many people to use them. If the stage is looking like a building site, then it's probably worth treating it like one.

 

Yes the knees bending thing is a helpful effect and the hat protects from local impact from memory up to around 3kgs from 2m above the user.

It's got to be better than not wearing one.

[Tomo]

It may be a bit OT, but how many theatres enforce a 'steelies only' on stage rule?

I don't know about venues, but *I* do not work without my steelies on.

They've saved my toes many times, and I've seen too many injuries to take the risk.

 

Just bought a new pair - the insoles are disintegrating on my old ones.

I prefer the 'shoes' style ones, as then when I'm FOH they look like (rather scuffed) dress shoes.

Plus they are great in nightclubs - no more girls in high heels stabbing my feet!

[Ellis]

Plus they are great in nightclubs - no more girls in high heels stabbing my feet!

If the bouncers don't spot you're wearing them and refuse you entry - happend to me several times when I was working as a software developer at an engineering company and wore Oxford-style steelies exclusively!

 

Aparently such places ban them because they do more harm when kicking the bouncers! What is safer for one person is more dangerous for another!

[paul the paranoid lampy]

my view is the following, hard hats have a place. when overhead work is taking place. I e rigger in the grid etc. when there is no overhead work being carried out, the hard hats should in my view be removed.

I had a very interesting chat with a rigger from a large rigging company regarding the petzel hats they have, they carried two, one with vent holes(sport) and the new solid hats( industrial) they were told by the HSE that they must wear the idustrial hats with no vents. (imagine wearing a plastic bucket on your head for 8 hours!!!!!!)

[Chris Higgs]

A common problem.

To get the EN standard for head protection for ground work, you're not allowed the holes. The ventilated ones are designed for work at height.

I have witnessed tests that showed the impact resistance of the shell to be the same as the style without the holes.

There are other diffrences that make the unventilated ones better for ground work, but PPE must be compatible with the work and the worker.

There are many people who wear hard hats all their working day.

It is technically unlikely that our personal choices have a part to play legally, since we are obliged by law to use whatever safe system our employers have put in place. If you are self employed, you better make sure that you have taken a similar route.

All one can hope is that the employer has taken suitable advice in the decision to issue appropriate PPE. You can get involved by providing feedback if it's obviously counterproductive, or like climbing in steelies - it may create a hazard where none previously existed.

It's my experience that the HSE are actually more concerned with fitness for purpose than Standards, so if the use of ventilated helmets contributes to overall improvement of working conditions they would be quite happy with it. It's more likely it was the Local Authority who made the recommendation; they are often closer to the construction industry than the entertainment industry.

The blanket use of hard hats in construction is because the conditions are difficult to control. I would argue that when they work is planned and controlled in our industry there is often no reason for hard hats to worn, but it's all down to risk assessment.

The venue mentioned would presumably present so many head injury hazards that the 'blaket' approach is the best way to manage the situation.

They are useful to prevent injury from scaff tubes, scenery and plenty of other things that conspire to dent your head during an in or out.

[Ben...]

Regarding the long sequence of naughtiness ending with the broken toe + compensation...

While pushing the trolley out of the lift, the wheel caught in the gap. The equipment fell off the trolley onto his foot. The equipment, worth around 50,000 pounds, was irreparably damaged, and he suffered a broken toe.

 

Whilst not knowing the facts of the case beyond what you describe, it reads like the injury he received was because he was using a trolley that was not fit for purpose, and his injury wasn't connected to any of the other dangerous/illegal/unauthorised things he was doing. The same thing could have happened during the day if he had moved any item of heavy equipment with the trolley, so I'd say it's reasonable that the employer is liable.

 

The trolleys we have for moving kit are nearly all low (some can jack-up) and the few high ones are marked not for use with heavy or awkward items. Additionally all have large wheels that won't get caught in lifts. (And trolleys are only accessible to trained staff; If untrained staff can get access, that's the employer's fault. If untrained/unauthorised staff can trivially circumvent security, that's also the employer's fault.)

[dfinn]

When im rigging I generally do wear a helmet because The bars are at just the right level for me to knock my head on, I normally wear my riggers gloves too.

 

I do this in the hall on both ladders and tallescope but in our other space I tend not to as the bars arent at head height. If I fell off the helmet would just fall off anyway so wouldnt protect my head + would become a falling object.

 

When people are up the tallescope people below must have helmets on. Our caretaker had a suprise when he folded up a pair of ladders and a gel holder came falling down on his head. Granted whoever left the holder up there was to blame but it shows that at ground level it pays to wear a helmet which I normally do when theres ladders/ tallescopes about.

 

Thanks,

 

Daniel

[Pete]

Sorry didnt we talk about the right helmet for the right job already?

[bruce]

While pushing the trolley out of the lift, the wheel caught in the gap. The equipment fell off the trolley onto his foot. The equipment, worth around 50,000 pounds, was irreparably damaged, and he suffered a broken toe.

 

Whilst not knowing the facts of the case beyond what you describe, it reads like the injury he received was because he was using a trolley that was not fit for purpose, and his injury wasn't connected to any of the other dangerous/illegal/unauthorised things he was doing. The same thing could have happened during the day if he had moved any item of heavy equipment with the trolley, so I'd say it's reasonable that the employer is liable.

 

 

That was also his lawyers argument. But that trolley was not intended for moving that piece of equipment - it just happened to be a trolley that was "handy" - it was the one the mailman uses for delivering letters and small parcels. And he shouldn't have been attempting to move that sort of kit on his own. The "big trolley" was chained up, to stop people moving kit without authorisation....

 

As always happens in these cases, the accountants got involved, and decided it was cheaper to settle out of court than to

contest the claim....

[Ben...]

That was also his lawyers argument. But that trolley was not intended for moving that piece of equipment - it just happened to be a trolley that was "handy" - it was the one the mailman uses for delivering letters and small parcels. And he shouldn't have been attempting to move that sort of kit on his own. The "big trolley" was chained up, to stop people moving kit without authorisation....

But, to continue thinking like a lawyer (sorry), the trolley shouldn't have been left unlocked, and he should have received appropriate training about what not to lift. It's another one of those risk assessment things.

 

I know it all seems a bit silly sometimes, but I like to think that the constant low-level bickering about the more extreme ends of H&S (locking up screwdrivers, banning brightly coloured ties, etc.) seems to have the effect of making rules about wearing hard hats seem so reasonable by comparison that no-one argues with them

 

As always happens in these cases, the accountants got involved, and decided it was cheaper to settle out of court than to

contest the claim....

[bruce]

But, to continue thinking like a lawyer (sorry), the trolley shouldn't have been left unlocked,

 

It wasn't. He had, without permission, made a copy of a master key, to gain access to a locked room which he had been explicitly told not to go in to. The key had engraved on it "not to be copied". So I suppose someone should be sueing the key-cutting place that made the copy

 

Getting slightly back on topic, I was told today by our H&S people that my hi-viz jacket didn't meet current requirements. Apparently it doesn't have enough stripes....

[Simon Lewis]

Getting slightly back on topic, I was told today by our H&S people that my hi-viz jacket didn't meet current requirements. Apparently it doesn't have enough stripes....

 

This is a serious issue, that will probably require an additional staff member in H&S to carry out an initial inspection, then maintain an annual inventory of reflective stripes ;-)