Hi-Vis Clothing and Rucksacks
- Thread starter n0legs
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Harbo":m3ifxqbl said:
:wink: and that's all I'm saying :lol:
The issue, for clarification, has been that by carrying/wearing a rucksack ( even though in itself it is made of a reflective material ) covers up the staffs (conforming to the rules of the highway, BS EN471 etc, ) PPE/Hi-Vis jackets that are required under H&S rules for working on the highway. Are they at greater risk ??
It's a can of worms to be honest, if you were to use a rucksack surely that rucksack should ( whilst being worn on your back and thus obscuring the Hi-Vis jacket ) offer the same reflectivity and visibility levels of the Hi-Vis clothing. If the answer is yes then there should be a regulation or standard created to ensure that staff are, and remain, protected to the same degree.
The lack of such regulation or standard has caused the issue, managers just can't buy something at the local cycle store and say "use this it's reflective enough". As most of you are aware equipment/tools/PPE etc, needs to conform to certain standards to qualify for use in a professional manner.
Example, Dado blades. At home in your own personal table saw, regardless of likes or dislikes, you could use them. In a commercial workshop there are rules regarding their use. Yes or no ?
The issue of them carrying something is another matter of concern, it's what they are carrying is the main problem (££££££££'s).
There is currently no need for this to be carried out but as always people/managers like to fix something that is not broken in the first place. Because of this new idea, risk has been increased to the staff by carrying out this operation/procedure.
The basics of risk assessment asks do you need to carry this or that out in the first place, this has been ignored so far by the employer. So when faced with having to do it because the company is pushing so hard to get it done, shouldn't all and every extra/new risk be challenged and ultimately be reduced to an acceptable level ? The answer has to be yes.
Thanks to all who've contributed.
N0legs out.
DiscoStu
Established Member
Coming from a business type world and not from a public sector world I struggle to be worried as to whether or not a hi viz rucksack meets a standard. As long as it is clearly visible and reflective that should be fine and I suspect that actually what is going on is that people are hiding behind this standard compliance because they don't want to wear a rucksack. If a rucksack isn't required currently then how are the items currently collected and what is wrong with the current system?
DiscoStu
Established Member
I would have thought that there would / should be a way of transferring the money from booth to money collection point automatically. Ie like on the suction tubes some supermarkets have. Failing that have a van that drives to each both and collects it.
DiscoStu":2n4c2uyy said:
The matter of being easily seen on the highway is a serious one. I think the problem is quite easy to understand, if there are regulations governing what and how PPE is worn and used on the highway then anything that should in anyway potentially restrict this PPE needs to have some form of governance. It's very easy to say that's Hi-Vis so use it, but if an accident were to occur the injured (maybe dead) person may not get what he/she was due in the way of compensation.
When Chapter 8 was brought in ( a set of rules on signing, guarding and working procedures for working on the highways ) an issue was raised about the wearing of the reflective jackets. A worker had been hit by a vehicle whilst wearing a Hi-Vis jacket, he was injured but his claim for compensation was reduced due to the jacket not being zipped up at the front. The driver, possibly quite rightly, claimed he did not see the worker. He did admit that he had seen the signs and cones and had realized he was entering an area of roadworks.
A test was conducted to see if this was true and low and behold the driver was correct, the worker would have been very difficult to see.
A ruling was made, even though the worker had on his Hi-Vis, as per the then current regs, he was found to have contributed to his accident due to the jacket not being worn correctly. Where does the poor old workman go from there, okay he might be up a few quid for his pain and suffering but wouldn't having the guy who hit him prosecuted for due care and attention been a bit more satisfying ? He'd seen the cones around the road works, would it not have been reasonable to expect someone might have been there working in this location ?
It's when the manure has hit the fan and people can squirm and wriggle that people/workers need protecting. Too many unfortunate people have been injured and worse due to a "just get on with it" attitude, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Anyway, currently there is a perfectly good system in place that puts no one at risk for transferring of the money from location A to Vault B. The whole idea has been a stupid one, dreamed up by a manager trying to cut a few corners and save a few quid.
I don't want to seem bitter but I've seen a good few accidents over the years that have been caused by oversights, mistakes and "didn't think that would happen". People go to work to make a living, not to stop living.
Woodmonkey
Established Member
I'm off with my air rifle to go poaching guys with hi-vis rucksacks down Severn beach
DiscoStu
Established Member
So the standard for hi viz has to be X for the motorway because cars are travelling at 50+ mph, ok fair enough I assume that specific standard is set so that the wearer can be seen by a car approaching at those sort of speeds and therefore be seen from further away. Surely at toll booths the speed of the cars is significantly slower than on the motorway and therefore the same level of hi viz wouldn't be required. I would also have thought that someone walking between booths would be side on to cars, and therefore if anything a hi viz rucksack would increase the amount of hi viz that was visible to a driver.
The idea of someone having to walk across to each booth and carry a load of heavy money seems ridiculous, but I struggle to understand using the hi viz compliance as a point to argue. Surely the managers that have come up with this will then just ensure that the rucksack conforms to the relevant hi viz requirement?
Anyway I don't want to fall out with anyone, so this is just my view and you are all welcome to completely disagree with me.
The idea of someone having to walk across to each booth and carry a load of heavy money seems ridiculous, but I struggle to understand using the hi viz compliance as a point to argue. Surely the managers that have come up with this will then just ensure that the rucksack conforms to the relevant hi viz requirement?
Anyway I don't want to fall out with anyone, so this is just my view and you are all welcome to completely disagree with me.
DiscoStu":j02jyh4r said:So the standard for hi viz has to be X for the motorway because cars are travelling at 50+ mph, ok fair enough I assume that specific standard is set so that the wearer can be seen by a car approaching at those sort of speeds and therefore be seen from further away. Surely at toll booths the speed of the cars is significantly slower than on the motorway and therefore the same level of hi viz wouldn't be required. I would also have thought that someone walking between booths would be side on to cars, and therefore if anything a hi viz rucksack would increase the amount of hi viz that was visible to a driver.
The idea of someone having to walk across to each booth and carry a load of heavy money seems ridiculous, but I struggle to understand using the hi viz compliance as a point to argue. Surely the managers that have come up with this will then just ensure that the rucksack conforms to the relevant hi viz requirement?
Anyway I don't want to fall out with anyone, so this is just my view and you are all welcome to completely disagree with me.
Yea correct, the required level is Class 3 level 2.
They have an unofficial 30 mph limit but it still stands at 50 mph for the moment so the level of protection remains as above.
That's the issue, if they go find and then prove that a "Hi-Vis" rucksack will meet the required level of visibility and have it certified as such then the argument certainly for that part of it is over, but until they do the staff have a good reason for the dispute.
Don't worry about having your own view, I for one am a bit to mature and sensible to take it personally.
Thanks for the input.
finneyb
Established Member
n0legs":cnghiaw7 said:
Don't forget your Hi-Vis as camouflage :wink:
Brian
tim burr
Established Member
Could the backpack not be worn under the hi viz, or are we talking big backpacks?
