By David Towlson
In Terry Pratchett’s 26th Discworld novel, Thief of Time, two History Monks (Lu-Tze and Lobsang) are rushing to deal with an emergency involving their procrastinator machines (used to move and store time). Standard health and safety issue is a thick cork helmet. Lu-Tze hands Lobsang the helmet, and the following conversation ensues:
“Health and safety at work,” he said. “Very important.”
“Will it protect me?” said Lobsang, putting it on.
“Not really. But when they find your head, it may be recognizable.”
I think it rather healthy to ask yourself, will that PPE actually make any difference? (or at least, enough of a difference, given the inconvenience of wearing it). An obvious fact but it turns out that most PPE isn’t needed most of the time (think about it laterally – when’s the last time anything hit you whilst wearing a hard hat?). Some types of PPE are routinely worn “just in case” – and that might well be reason enough. Perhaps its very presence diverts potential emergencies in a sort of pre-emptive cosmic, time-warp way – or maybe it’s just too stylish to be involved in an accident.
The just-in-case argument is valid because emergencies (and their outcomes) are difficult to predict. Yes, we all say an event was predictable but we don’t actually mean that – hindsight isn’t the same thing as prediction. And the truth is that it is difficult to predict the specific time, place, personnel and outcome of any given accident. General predictions are easy (e.g. there will be 49 head injuries in industry X this year…) based on historical records and trends but specifics are considerably more variable.
Related is other personal safety equipment, such as Hi-Vis clothing. Sounds a good idea, but just based on my own experience, if everyone is wearing it, it may well lose its impact and no longer point out those especially vulnerable workers – as we humans tend to ignore the familiar. As an example, I have been a visitor on a site, had to keep to specific pedestrian routes (accompanied as well), walking down what was essentially a normal street with pedestrian walkway to the office building and yet I had to wear a Hi-Vis jacket and hard-hat, because it was a site rule.
So, as safety people, when we use the just-in-case argument, we probably need to make that case better. We need to make sure we are addressing real risk reduction (i.e. a real safety argument) – primarily so we don’t look totally stupid. Wearing PPE just because it is “standard kit” is not convincing – people are not idiots. Yes, blanket rules are easy to enforce, but as professionals, we need a more reasoned argument so we don’t undermine our efforts by looking ridiculous.
David Towlson is director of training and quality at RRC International
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good article.
One blanket rule example i witnessed was the visual inspection of a completed concrete walkway. All (10+) attending were required to wear hard hats.
Many must have felt quite daft and went a nice red colour, when it was questioned loudly by a passer by as to what they thought could fall on their heads, when there was only sky above.
I have been saying this for years. My own cause celebre is the blanket use where it is really really really is not needed. In my opinion the whole issue of blanket PPE is an excuse for not doing a proper risk assessment – ie an assessment of the actual hazards involved in a given set of circumstances.
Every building site now is full of men wearing hi vis jackets.
For what?
How many will be working in the vicinity of moving plant? Not many. And certainly none on the roof or inside painting a ceiling, yet it has become standard required garb now.
Some years ago I was on a site where everyone was required to wear every piece of PPE available- from boots to gloves and glasses. Just in case.
But in all the blind hysteria to make sure we were all wrapped in cotton wool, the site management had forgotten to deal a real hazard – traffic. We had to cross a busy dusty haul road to get to site – dodging the delivery lorries, telehandlers etc.
But we must have been safe- we were wrapped in PPE…
I totally get the argument you make but the author and yourself also make a ‘blanket dismissal’. OK there may not be traffic in the middle of the large warehouse unit that you are constructing, but what if there is an explosion, a panic to get out and a power cut. It’s going to be much easier to find the injured persons with hi-viz clothing in the dark. All I’m saying is do a proper RA but don’t throw out th ebaby with the bathwater.
I would agree with you Phil. However all these factors need to happen first and even then its questionable how much value a high viz vest will add. I think we all agree that an explosion should not even take place which then leads to panic and perhaps may lead to a power outage. We are talking here about a workforce having to wear PPE on a daily basis several hours a day which might come in handy in situations that might happen at some point. There is really to many Ifs involved to justify such a blanket rule of PPE. Anything can happen anytime however doing a proper Risk assessment and most importantly having a solid program in place to manage hazards and risks is where the focus should be set. I agree with Rob that far too many organizations often fail to carry out a proper risk assessment either on purpose or otherwise and fail to implement proper Risk management programs and take instead measures that are easiest to implement and that they perceive to be adequate control measures. This is unfortunately the case because too many individuals in the management level still see HSE as something that interferes with production. PPE doesn’t interfere. Proper procedures do so they think.