
He was lucky that he didn't find himself bobbing up and down in the sea...
Welcome once more, dear reader, to Who, Me? in which Reg readers like your good self attempt to soften the blow of the working week with tales of techie misadventure. This week's hero is a reader we’ll Regomize as "Bob" who, many years ago, worked on software for container cranes – the massive machines that load and unload …
Reminds me of the time when a miniature Hitler came rocketing across the tarmac in his orange and white Hilux pickup “safety vehicle” at a large airport to inform me that I was going to be fined for not having my high visibility vest fully buttoned up.
“But how did you know it wasn’t done up?”, I asked.
“Because I could see you from ALL THE WAY OVER THERE”, he replied, without the slightest trace of irony.
I was working under IR35 at the time when I shouldn’t have been, so the fine was filed in the kitchen bin and the airport didn’t bother to follow it up as it might have raised questions they didn’t want answered.
> I was working under IR35 at the time...
Can you explain this to the token American? I did Google it and it appeared to be something like "Getting Paid Under The Table" or "Unpaid Work (do it for free or lose your job)". How would the airline suffer if they were discovered?
The latter is pretty common in the USA, so much so that companies brag about how much free overtime they can force people to do. E
What is IR35 UK in simple terms?
IR35 is a tax legislation that aims to prevent disguised employment. By this we mean that it's in force to identify if a contractor is genuinely self-employed or is working as a disguised employee and therefore avoiding tax.
It was also used to control what legitimate expenses the contractor could claim for example working away from home, sign a 6 month contract, great, extend for 3 months, extend for 3 months, extend for 3 months, extend for 3 months, so far so good, the moment you signed for a extension that took you over the two years.
**BANG**
Those company expenses retro-actively now had to come out of your own pocket, if you signed a contract for greater than 2 years at the outset, your expenses could not be claimed. As you were a disguised employee & could no longer claim those expenses.
It was designed to stop contractors, using the same loopholes politicians & big businesses used as they didn't see why the little man\independents should use the same tricks as they did in "tax avoidence".
Throw in the fact that the rules were constantly in a state of flux & suddenly you were on the hook for "evaded" tax.
Then to further confuse the mix, those contractors were sometimes developers working on very big IT & other Government projects & it was not unusual* for those projects to stall as the developers\contractors without notice walked offsite at the 1 year, 364 days point (Including the Tax mans big projects implimenting the rules & systems checking compliance.
The Inland Revenue was usually most surprised every two years, that their rules had hoisted them on their own petard, arranged for new contractors\developers who spent time reviewing what the goal was, reviewing & then scrapping what had previously be done before getting to work, only for them themselves to quit at the 1 year, 364 days point. Repeat ad nauseam with the HM Government asking questions in the houses of parliament "what was taking so long & why the costings had trebled".
You would often find yourself working alongside permies, who took the same view as the "big boys" that we were overpaid, without appreciating we had effectively no employment rights & could be terminated at will & without any holiday\sick pay or unemployment benefits.
Missed the edit window, by dint of being home sick all day & being asleep during the afternoon...
It has cost them more in appeals & counter appeals as cases got thrown out of court as their own IR35 self assessment portal would rarely give the same results twice for a given scenario, than they have reclaimed via "avoidence".
Absolutely cuckoo. It basically put an end to the fake-contractor scams. No-one in their right mind insists on going to court (or tribunal) over what they know to be a scam, so all the chancers and liars and tax evaders simply stopped, rather than fight. There were, as before IR35's introduction, a handful of borderline cases requiring adjudication.
We had the same thing happen in the US decades ago. Being a software contractor was way more lucrative than being an employee (especially as employment protections have always been laughable -- the only real benefit to being employed was access to group medical insurance). The IRS put a stop to that 30 years or so ago.
Someone saw someone else without the mandatory hi-viz jacket. Mandatory! Safety! Missing! Must! Report! Or else distaster! Because safety.
Same logic as wearing hard hats on top of the crane - at the highest point where nothing but the sky could fall down on you and wearing anti-fall guard on ground level. Not to forget anti-fall guard in actually dangerous height but without a rope and certainly without anyone holding it. Completely pointless but safety inspectors are fine with it...
At a safety concious* utility company in the south of England, I was called by a colleague to assist him loading some old pallets into his car, in the loading bay. As I am large, was wearing a bright yellow shirt, and it was a overcast, but bright day, I didn't put on hi-viz. (tbh, it didn't occur to me)
Within 5 minutes, some one came running out to point out to me that as I wasn't wearing hi-viz, I'd need to come in. Apparenlty I wasn't visible enough... Did I mention being large and wearing a bright yellow shirt?
Fortunately I had finished helping my colleague anyway.
*some might say safety obsessed
On the BBC "Digging for Britain" most of the archeological digs have archeologists in tshirts, shorts, floppy hats etc as you might expect ... but they featured several digs that were excavating land where HS2 would/might eventually be built and as they were contracted by HS2 they invariably were all in head to toe HS2 hi-viz despite the fact that any trains track etc would not appear for years!
I would suspect that the real concern was not the lask of the high-viz, but rather that someone out of uniform, and thus a potential outsider, may be prowling around in a rather unsafe environment unattended. This would only require the attending high viz to be out of sight when the reporting party did the reporting.
Container harbours are dangerous places with large masses being moved all the time and high degrees of automation. Now imagine one "urban explorer" youtuber sneaking into such a place and climbing on top of a "temporarily" standing crane in order to perform some clickbaity balancing act with a running selfie-stick just as it starts to move again. Not good for the organisation.
Do not attribute malice to all that which can be attributed to competence or something like that...
"Container harbours are dangerous places with large masses being moved all the time and high degrees of automation.
I've driven a few times in some semi-large cargo terminals and it is always a bit nerving to navigate in the driveways along with all sorts of (automated) container movers, trucks and such while trying to navigate between six-stacked container "canyons" while trying to remember the map layout and not being sure where you can safely stop to take another look at the map. There's a hulking 5000 TEU container ship waiting at berth 31 but you just can't see it because of the containers everywhere - until you turn the last corner.
Don't know if it's really dangerous place, but when out of nowhere a four-story high straddle carrier suddenly comes behind / in front of you in the maze of containers there's certain amount of shock and awe and panic mixed together.
Reminds me of a time I pulled into a service station to fill up the car, and noted several military vehicles about (fueling up, plus presumably having a general convoy pitstop) surrounded by various guys and gals all in their regulation camo gear, but with high-vis vests on over the top of the kit.
Gave me a wry smile of conflicting attire...
.. at which point the hard hat won't quite help either..
But yes, the hard hat is there to stop your head suffering injury. If you're on one of these contraptions, bits will stick out and even daubing them in high-viz paint will not stop the occasional collision.
Given hardness of materials, all but my brother-in-law's skull would lose the contest with a fine piece of steel - it's a matter of density :).
"They spotted Bob because he wasn't wearing hi-viz, the other person was rendered invisible by theirs."
In my motorcycling days I quickly discovered that wearing a hi-viz functions as a cloak of invisibility. It is like Death walking through the crowds of A-M: everyone just gets out of your way. You can even cross a busy road with no trouble.
We had a mandate that everyone who went onto the workshop-floor had to wear toe-protection. A sensible rule which stopped you scuffing your shiny brogues.
Management didn't like this rule and flouted it until the 'workers' pointed to the H&S rulebook...
The management bought a set of 'over-shoes' that provided the same protection to the foot and enabled them to keep up 'appearances'. But they did make the unfortunate wearer look clown-like.....
The resultant sniggering ensured that they bought a pair of 'sensible' work shoes.
A few days ago I mentioned installing S/W in a factory. I was told before flying out that I would need a white coat - no problem, I had an old lab coat somewhere - & metal toe-capped shoes. A pair of suitable Doc Martens were obtained for the latter. They did sterling service as gardening shoes until comparatively recently but were invariable referred to as the ice-cream factory shoes.
Safety rep threatened to stand on the toes of my shiny brogues... I said 'go ahead', knowing they were company issue steel toe-caps!
They had problems with contractors not wearing safety shoes/boots in the warehouse... but we're forced to remove trainer-style safety footwear from the company catalogue after half the trainer wearers turned out to be wearing safety shoes
"Safety shoes" were a requirement forced upon us at one place. I found a comfortable pair and rather than changing at work as most office staff did, wore them full time from leaving home each morning - I didn't see any point in wearing out personal footwear for the journeys to and fro. The cost went on expenses, and I then learned that there was an "allowance" for twice the price I had paid, so I got further pairs every six months.
By the time I left for pastures new, I had four pairs in reserve.
A few from my experience.
When Hi-Viz was first coming in on sites (in place of the ubiquitous donkey jacket) I was at one site where they took all the hi-viz off the ground workers to give to the machine operators 'cause Elf 'n Safety had dictated the operators must wear it - that's notwithstanding the fact they were safely sat in blooming great yellow machines with flashing beacons whilst the ground workers were vulnerable.
Brother rocked up at a site to deliver a digger - the first plant for the job in the middle of an empty field. The site agent followed him in and shouted at him for not wearing a hard hat as he exited the cab.
Working on a canal lock restoration, volunteer workers on top of the lock had hard hats on, those from a different group at the bottom didn't. The biggest danger was someone being hit by a falling hard hat as none of them had chin straps.
When the (never used) Nightingale hospitals were being built during the pandemic, they called in the army to help build them.
Being in the army they wore uniforms - in camouflage designs intended to make them difficult to see.
Being on a building site they wore hi-vis jackets over their low-viz camo.
As somebody whose job in latter years (before retirement) involved a lot of visits to companies to assess their capability to deliver what the customer wanted (they were called "audits" because that's a term people understand, but were really capability assessments) I could write a book on the ridiculous PPE requirements I encountered. A few examples:
• Safety glasses for people operating hydraulic machinery - but not required for anyone else nearby i.e. just the person at the control panel (often the place least likely to have a high pressure/velocity leak).
• A requirement to wear safety harnesses when working at height - but omitting any requirement to have them fastened to a strong point (so most people would have the "cow's tails" clipped back to their harness).
• A hard hat when cutting into pavement but no requirement for eye protection (flying concrete chips), mouth and nose protection (cement dust) or hearing protection (noise from the hand-held, petrol powered diamond disc cutter).
I recall being told that the HSE* had called an offshore contractor (for the UK North Sea O&G sector) to stop their staff phoning in safety observations for the building site opposite their offices - "it's a construction site, not an offshore platform". There are a lot of jokes about H&S, especially offshore, but it's one of the most hazardous places to work yet has one of the best records for safe working. Yes, there are excessive requirements, but it generates a culture where people fly back to the shore in the same physical condition that they had when they flew out.
And a lot of the onshore excesses that get blamed on the HSE are a result of a fear of prosecution, and well in excess of any legislative requirement. I recall a meeting where the head of the HSE at the time commented that children need to learn that falling out of a tree hurts - before they get into situations that cause real injury.
* For left-pondians: the UK Health & Safety Executive - the body responsible for overseeing the implementation of UK H&S legislation (and prosecuting breaches).
I must admit my interactions with the HSE were generally sensible - even when I wanted them to condemn a piece of machinery so I could get it replaced they helpfully suggested improvements instead.
The issue was usually company safety officers - I had one who's idea of a risk assessment was that even the most minor hazard would kill you, e.g. noticing a minor crack in concrete, "It's very likely someone will trip over that and if they do they might bang their head on the floor and die!"
Some also use it as a excuse to not do things they don't want to do for other reasons.
One place refused to move staff cars to allow an HGV access to site because "it's a H&S hazard for our staff to walk 100m to their vehicles".
Someone higher up realised what was on the HGV was rather important. The staff were miraculously able to walk after his intervention.
> Some also use it as a excuse to not do things they don't want to do for other reasons.
Yes. Exactly this.
"Elf and Safty" is the excuse of choice for people who want to be unhelpful and difficult. It's been that way ever since the legislation was drafted, particularly in the public sector.
It's been desribed as the three most insideous words in the English language.
Agreeing with what GlenP said. From the few interactions I have had with HSE staff, they seem very pragmatic and sensible.
The same cannot always be said for company 'H&S managers' with their shiny new IOSH certificates, who, for example, demanded a lifting plan for taking a portaloo off the back of a truck using the truck's own HIAB.
The danger of short courses. The limited time only allows a limited amount to be taught - which is rarely enough time for students (even "mature" students) to understand context. Whenever I recommended a company to send its managers on IOSH courses I always added the stipulation that they should never send them one at a time (mix roles and departments) and have a clear plan to get them all sent within a relatively short time. That way, a modicum of context will infiltrate the company. It was the same with MBAs - never have just one manager with an MBA as you need others able to challenge and constructively discuss.
For safety, my minimum training for work facing supervisors is the NEBOSH certificate. That's either distance learning, followed by a couple of useful assessments, or a two-week taught course (and with the latter, not in-house as a lot of the benefit comes from a mixed classroom where there won't be consensus on "how it's always been done").
Best of all is something at diploma level, that takes longer and gives time to appreciate context. You don't always learn how to do everything, but you learn what needs to be done. The more you know you don't know, the more expert you can be in what you do know.
"not in-house as a lot of the benefit comes from a mixed classroom where there won't be consensus on "how it's always been done")."
Umpty upvotes for that. Although it would be more convenient and cheaper for me (self-employed) to opt for e-learning I always like to go to classroom courses - often you learn as much from the other trainees as from the trainer.
When developing a task risk assessment process for a number of offshore drilling operations (for use by the drill crew) I set a rule a few basic rules:
• There should be no reference to what should be "givens" (e.g. if local rules already stipulate basic PPE requirements, assume it will be worn). That doesn't assume those givens will be realised, but processes for enforcement of those should already be in place. A task risk assessment needs to focus on what is not a given, that is different to the norm or an introduced hazard.
• The written report (usually a standardised format) should not normally exceed one page. If it needs more, the assessment probably needs to be elevated beyond local crew.
• Every non-standard action (i.e. the risk mitigations needed as a result of the assessment) should be itemised on the work permit - and in a box next to where the crew members sign it.
Not perfect, and wasn't liked by some of the company HSE management, but they were overruled whilst I was working there - and we didn't have any significant accidents whilst it was in place. After I left, HSE enforced their system that was probably sponsored by the local stationery supplier!
I wasn't part of the HSE department - I was hired direct by the company drilling management.
This post has been deleted by its author
it generates a culture where people fly back to the shore in the same physical condition that they had when they flew out.
And that, and only that, is and should be the reason for any mandatory PPE and surrounding safety procedures.
One of the biggest issues I have with idiotic H&S rules is that they damage the core idea of care and attention to the health of staff in dangerous environments. They should be sane and safe, and not some power exercise by wannabe mini dictators because it devalues the whole concept.
A safety rep mandated that when you use a zip-tie the end should be cut off for no apparent reason (except possible to make things tidy)... I pointed out that this left a sharp point (unless you used the proper zip-tie tensioner, which had a rounded cutter)
Another mandated the proper way to handle cabinets, which included pushing on the centre of the back door... just where our guys would be putting stickers warning you not to push here! ('cos it's the weaker point of the thin metal and they are liable to end up caved in)
Indeed meaningful workplace safety is a culture, not a box-ticking exercise. I think part of the problem is that, to the uninitiated, "PPE is safety", when PPE sits at the bottom of the hierarchy of workplace safety control. The thing you do after you've done everything else possible to eliminate or reduce risk.
Had a similar "please stop reporting" missive when I worked in oil & gas. Safety was drummed in to us, but dodgy contractors that building owner would use didn't care and would work on 5 story roof with no fall protection and were generally idiots. And we reported each time, but after a few days manglement had heard enough.
I saw a guy sitting in one of my company's cafeterias, one table away from mine. He was wearing the most raggedy-assed fall-protection harness I had ever seen -- 2/3 of the webbing across the back had been frayed away.
I said to him, "Excuse me, I notice that your harness is dangerously-lookingly frayed. You might want to have that checked." He gave me a dirty look.
I thought to myself, "Okay, Mister-Aggressively-Stupid. Do things your way, but don't expect tears from me when it goes horribly wrong for you."
I think it's easier for cyclists planning to ride on leafy lanes to take note and buy appropriately coloured clothing. The motorist might have to do some rather invasive research to ascertain if a given cyclist is likely to be sharing the road with them on said country lane, to say nothing of the difficulty with appropriately sizing the garment.
I find it challenging enough to wrestle them off their bicycles to fit them with a helmet if I notice one without adequate protection.
No - you need to drive according to the conditions, if you are in a position where you can't see that the road is clear (which is different from not being able to see obstructions) then you need to adjust your speed accordingly. It is your responsibility to not drive into things.
Most cyclists don't wear exclusively yellow high vis - you should be able to see a person whatever they are wearing.
And if you really think a cycle helmet offers any meaningful protection I've got a bridge to sell you.
Actually spent quite a bit of time looking at the relevant research over the course of several years.
The rate of injury is lower than, for instance, walking... so presumably you wear a specialist walking hat?
The injury rate among cyclists is also increased with increased helmet wearing, whilst the proportion of head to limb injuries doesn't change.
There is no substantive evidence that they make a significant difference in either direction (and yes, there is evidence that their effect is actually marginally harmful as well as marginally helpful)
The rate of injury is lower than, for instance, walking
Per-distance travelled but that is for fatalities, not serious injuries. You're also not taking into account the average speed of the transport mode. The same argument would suggest that airbags and a seat belt are essential items for walking but not driving. To offer a little hand holding: the reduction in injury severity offered by a protective measure is as important as the rate of underlying risk.
Regurgitating the myth about helmets being harmful demonstrates an inability to distinguish between correlation and causation. It may, perhaps, assist in guiding policy but it's essentially misinformation when applied to an individual decision.
"Regurgitating the myth about helmets being harmful"
As opposed to regurgitating the myth about them being helpful?
I clearly said that the net effect is at or about zero.
There are effects which push it negative (larger head more likely to collide with things, increased risk of snagging and causing rotational injuries, increased risk of injuries due to motorists deciding to pass closer as examples), and things which push it positive - the overall effect is approximately zero.
It's a completely pointless thing to focus on if you're looking at transport safety - approximately zero benefit whilst increasing the risk for everyone (because fewer cyclists inevitably means more drivers); it also increases the load on the health service (since fewer cyclists means more sedentary lifestyle illnesses).
It's a really good thing to focus on if your intent is to distract from all the things you could be doing but aren't.
Cycle helmets vary a lot. Some research indicates that the safest design includes long flowing feminine hair down the wearer's back. Apparently a lot of car drivers give a cyclist more elbow room if the cyclist presents as female when viewed from behind. I haven't actually got that... but my main cyclist safety points are to have at least one slightly convex rear view mirror to see what's behind you, and wisdom and courage to ride directly in the way of the car behind if there isn't room to overtake... and where riding this allows you to go faster through whichever difficulty you are passing through. And you can draw in to the side, which is usually a less good cycling surface, if someone is coming up behind and it's safer to give them the space.
My bike had a mechanical failure and dumped me off while I was riding it. My basic, cheap-o bike helmet served as ablative armor, and saved me from having the back of my skull being ground off against the roadway (and consequent trip to the casualty ward).
They're cheap insurance.
Both should take note: I keep a stock of high vis waistcoats (vests) in my van that i rescued from a skip, admittedly they're yellow, but i've stopped several cyclists late at night, who were stupidly dressed in all dark clothing, and proffered one with an explanation, only got told to eff off once :)
Because it doesn't actually give you an edge.
If someone isn't watching, then they won't see you whatever you are wearing.
High vis makes a difference at very long range, but at long range it doesn't matter - you can't hit me from a mile away or more. On the railway it makes a difference because stopping distances are measured in miles, and steering doesn't exist.
Drive to space you can see to be clear - you never know if someone has collapsed onto the road, or a tree has fallen across the road without thinking about donning a high vis jacket first.
"You'd think black would be more highvis against white then fluorescent yellow..."
Unfortunately folk - especially those whose approach to H&S is box-ticking rather than critical thinking - are too focused on hi-vis. I think that was originally designed when working near motorways, etc. i.e. needs large reflective panels which make the wearer visible to drivers, at night. But that's not always the best choice for daylight operations. During the day, and away from vehicle headlights there are more effective solutions such as https://www.engelbert-strauss.co.uk/jackets/e-s-forestry-jacket-kwf-3132090-60172-1299.html?itemorigin=SEARCH (developed for forestry but I also wear it on industrial sites).
What shape where they before?
A joke? maybe...
Guy out walking comes to a lake where a couple of others are having a skimming competition. He is astonished to see them getting 10 -15 bounces.
"Wow!" He says, "What kind of stones are you using to do that?"
"They're not stones", is the reply "AA batteries." and to prove it they skim another couple across.
The following day he goes along again with a bunch of batteries, and ask if he can join in. However he's upset that his only get 1 bounce, and sometimes not even that.
"Why can't I do it?" He asks. "I got these from the shop this morning."
"Well, that's the problem." One of the others says. "It only works with flat batteries."
We were working in a theatre over the stage ( 60+ ft up), bolting something to the steel grid.
We put a big sign on the stage door- saying do not enter - people working at height. We put red and white tape around the edge of the stage.
One of our cast wandered in, through the door, under the tape and across the stage. We shouted down "GET OFF THE STAGE", he looked up,we shouted again. He replied "why", we shouted because we are working up here! We were at a tricky moment, and dropped a washer which fell about 6 ft from the cast member.
Once we were down, the cast member was upset and said he could have been killed.... He threatened to raise a H&S incident. He said we should have have signs up, and tape around the working area.
We pointed out the red and white tape, the sign on the door, and that he had just ignored them. His wife told him to stop being an idiot, and he walked off in a huff. Next time we had someone stationed at the door to stop people going on stage.
I was driving along a main highway, when I noticed an accident scene ahead (police/ambulance/fire vehicles, lots of flashing lights...).
I slowed down, approaching cautiously, when a police officer started waving me forwards.
I drove forwards slowly, but stopped when I realised (by looking up through the sunroof), that the police office was actually waving in a rescue helicopter to land on the road! I was seriously p*****d, as they hadn't actually done anything about closing the road before landing a helicopter on it!
On a side note, the actual accident was an interesting one... there was a fairly sharp 90 degree-ish corner (with a Cafe on the outside of the bend). A truck going around the bend had an insecure load, and a tyre rolled off the truck deck, and bounced its way through the wall of the Cafe into a patron...
At my last job, we had a room with all the HVAC ducting in it, and as such everyone was required to wear hard hats when in it. The problem was that the ducting was 6'3" off the floor, and being 6' I could walk under it safely, until I put a hard hat on, after which I was continually banging the hat on the ducting.
Sadly logic doesn't factor in these rules, and as the tallest person in my team (only my manager was taller than me) I tried to get other people to go into that room instead...
When I return home from a bicycle ride I'll enter the side door of my house off the kitchen wearing my cycling helmet. It seems about a 1 in 4 chance I hit it on the corner of the cabinetry when entering. Fortunately it is only a couple times a year I hit my unhelmeted head on said corner, but the fact I do it so often in my cycling helmet shows how close I must come day to day to doing so much more often!
There's a thing called the Blue Helmet Rule. It doesn't matter what the colour is, it's a principle where one person wears something distinctively different and them and ONLY them give instructions in a multi-person task. "Bring it my way", "No, towards me a bit" BlueHat: "NO! EVERYBODY SHUT UP! Bob, prepare to move left, Jim, prepare to move right, ok, both of you move three steps..." etc. The blue hat can even be invisible and only "present" in the minds of the people present.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I notice that hard hat wearers around me (left pondian) have started wearing ones that look more like sport climbing helmets...tighter to the head and with clip-together chin straps. These are mostly climbers (tree, tower, building) as opposed to ground workers. Seems like a smart idea.
Yes well the American ones seem to make more sense for America generally - the default one has a wide brim to create shade for the wearer and deflect direct sunlight onto the head (useful for working in hot and sunny conditions) and ditto for snow etc in wintry conditions.
The UK ones are generally brimless except for a peak at the front.
You can get ones now though which have securing straps which you then tie off to your clothing (a lot of people tie it to their hi-viz) so if it does fall off your head you don't lose it down a lift shaft or something.
It does make you look a bit of a prat though since you have a lanyard floating next to your head. An example
is that almost all modern climbing helmets are designed to take *one* really hard bang and mitigate its impact by breaking apart, rendering them useless afterwards (like cycling helmets).
But yes, they are certainly not only much more comfortable than hard hats, but some quite likely also much safer if you get hit by something small and heavy falling onto your brain bucket. A classic hard hat (maybe there are better ones now, though) doesn't have much of an energy dissipation mechanism than just the springy plastic crown it sits on. The hard hat might stop penetration, but won't stop any whiplash. A climbing helmet is full of energy‑dissipating foam designed to controllably break apart, transferring the very least possible amount of force into your head and neck.
You mean like the small sharp rocks falling from a great height that mountaineering helmets are designed to protect from? Because falling rocks is one of the biggest dangers in mountaineering?
It's not a thin bit of foam. It's the same foam as used in your car's bumper nowadays. Plenty of mountaineering helmets have a hard shell all around the foam as well.
And actually, EN-12492 mountaineering helmets are certified somewhat similarly to EN 397 for penetration.
That includes a 3kg sharp metal spike dropped from 1m for a penetration test. The very same penetration test as done for EN 397 workplace hard hats.
They still wouldn't pass EN 397 or relevant OHSA or similar requirements, as the chin straps aren't designed to be auto‑releasing under a certain small load, as accidental strangulation is much less of a danger if you take a long tumble in the mountains than your helmet snapping off and leaving you unprotected on your next contact with the rock.
I'm seeing a lot of comments here that seem to criticize safety protocols in cases where they're probably overkill.
I'd like to offer a counter-perspective.
There are several problems that can get workers maimed or killed for real:
1) Normalization of deviance. See table saw accidents, for example. Or the RiffTrax video "Shake Hands with Danger", or that hilarious German video about forklift safety, or the "Dumb Ways to Die" video.
2) A company culture that, over time, erodes safety vigilance in favor of profit / expedience. And punishes those who speak up C.f. Boeing.
I think being vigilant and always following the rules, even when shortcuts seem reasonable, is maybe the only known effective way to counter those dynamics.
It's a matter of having appropriate rules. e.g. the comment about most archaeologists wearing floppy hats as opposed to hard-hats on sites that don't require it. On most archaeological sites the major risk in the long term would be skin cancer (assuming one can find enough sun to be exposed to).
While I agree with the sentiment, one of our contractors is currently in hospital with a broken shoulder having fallen from 5 meters off a tower. This would not have happened had he followed the written rules; which most assuredly mandate the use of climbing gear for that height level.
Said contractor is lucky that he wasn't at a much taller point on any of our structures, some of which are up to 300m.
Workers are encouraged to challenge unsafe behaviours wherever they see them and put a stop to work. But if that doesn't happen, because psychology "it's only 5 meters, I'll be OK", or otherwise, what other practical filters can you put in place to stop people breaking the rules?
Ask the same question of how many people break the speed limit and drive irresponsibly, or without a seatbelt. You will be some way towards understanding the psychology at work here. Assume those crash barriers down the centre of a UK motorway are rated for 70mph. The driver smashing through the barrier from the other side having lost control affects other people besides the offending driver.
I am not blind to the fact that driving at 70 is absolutely not a catch all for "safe driving" but it is a level of risk happens to be considered acceptable. (And/or, exist to raise money for police pension funds).
Places I have visited that require any H&S stuff, be it hard hat, hi-viz, steelies etc. have normally had system where you are ichecked for ID. reason for visit before allowed on site. Told of the rules. Checked to ensure you have the kit (if not, you are lent customer branded gear to be returned on exit) and then allowed in (usually wearing all the required safety kit as then, if you take it off its your fault not the security / site access team! )
.. You did make sure you had your own hat, jacket, boots, ear defenders etc. when visiting sites as really don't want to have to borrow & wear kit of unknown hygiene levels. Though, was caught out on occasion as my kit did not include exotic stuff such as respirators, which was once needed (though happily, only to be worn in case of emergency klaxon, not by default, so did not have to wear the borrowed
item) at 1 site I had to visit
One Asian factory I visited had a full room full of coveralls, hats, shoes and earpro to lend to visitors (separate from the same arrangement for workers, so they could presumably tell us apart). All were meticulously clean, even the steelie shoes. Like right from the cleaners (I think they disinfected them after each visitor).
The funny part? I have *rather large* feet, right around the upper limit of even European shoe sizes. Nobody warned us that we'd need specific shoes before the visit. Obviously, the provided shoes were more like toe‑socks for me...
Since we were touring the facility as honoured guests of the mother company head honcho himself and half of their board, the poor guy in charge of kitting us up nearly had a panic attack when none of their shoes fit me.
I couldn't be left out of the tour – what if their CEO got angry at how their guest got treated? I was just a lowly member of the delegation, but they didn't know that. I couldn't be let in on the premises, as their regulations re safety shoes were sacred. Talk about Catch‑22...
I took pity on the guy and told him my personal boots were mil‑spec and held all the required equivalent EN safety certs (incl. toe reinf., no‑slip, chem resistance, biologicals resistance, oil resistance, everything except static I think). Which was actually true, even if I bought them more for just the easy big size availability.
It took a few panicked back and forth calls, a few more guys gathered in a heated discussion and finally somebody somewhere made the final call and I was allowed in. In my black boots. With everybody else wearing company‑branded white sneakers.
No idea what their head honcho thought of me stomping about their factory floor in my highly visible, ankle‑high black boots, but crisis averted.
"One Asian factory I visited had a full room full of coveralls, ...."
One of my European customers acquired a factory in Asia. First thing they did was to issue all the factory workers with safety boots and insist on them wearing those, instead of the flip-flops they were used to.
A friend of mine works in aircraft maintenance, and he is not shy about his prosthetic eyeball....
One day the VIP Suits were inspecting the facility, doing a contract re-negotiation. No safety gear. My friend walked up to one of them, removed his eye, looked at them directly, pointed at the "PPE Required" sign, and calmly stated "That sign is NOT a suggestion".
Slightly shocked, the Suits promptly donned safety glasses. In aerospace, zero exceptions to proper procedure is critically important, and they won the contract as a result of this interaction.
When I was a wee lad on the farm, our tractors and combine had no computers to run them. Nor did our neighbor's backhoe and bucket loader. Nor another one's Cat crawler. So why on earth does a crane need a computer? They worked fine for decades using skilled operators and electro-mechanical sensors.
Most large sites I've worked on, especially docks and ports, the safety wonks have binoculars so it's not a huge surprise they got spotted.
And safety isn't just about you, it's pretty traumatic to see the bits of colleagues left after an accident.
Having said all that, No docker jokes? Really?