Can anyone give me a clear definitive answer on boots?

A new bloke on site has been told he can't wear riggers cos their banned and that he should be wearing laceups instead.  I might not be the smartest tool in the box but the PPE regs don't seem to be very clear on  the matter.

They’re not banned, fact being every single solitary soul seen visiting sites these days has them on why.. because they think they’re trendy!…“does my bum look big in these?” asks the sales girl, or the shiny desk yuppie brigade who have got dressed up especially to leave their air-conditioned offices to go out onto site to do whatever they’re getting paid shed-loads to do.

  

Fact is, THE SAFETY BOOT OR SHOE. This is the most common type of safety footwear and it has a steel toe-cap and most types have a protected mid-sole. They are usually worn by trades such as groundworkers, bricklayers, demolition workers etc.

SAFETY 'TRAINERS'. In recent years a range of softer, more flexible safety footwear, known as safety trainers, have been introduced. These are fitted with a protective toe-cap and anti-slip soles. While their resistance to sole penetration is usually less than that provided by the safety boot they can be worn for a variety of construction activities PROVIDED THE WORKING AREA IS FREE FROM MATERIALS LIKELY TO PENETRATE THE WEARER'S FOOT.

Typical trades that may find safety trainers useful include Chippies Scaffolders and Roof workers where the level of grip and flexibility of the footwear is important as a safety feature in helping to ensure an adequate foothold when working at heights.

Rigger boots are dangerous end of story, a pure fashion statement - (similar to those who persist in draping their hi-viz over their car seat backs), the vane but ignorant individuals wear them, because they believe they look the part but mainly and perhaps more to the point.. because they are easy to get on and off.  

 

Regards

MVM    

 

I agree with you that rigger boots are dangerous. Last year a bloke on my site broke his foot while wearing them. It was really hard to get the boot off too because his foot had swollen so much. I can't be certain more damage wasn't inflicted on him when the boot was coming off. It was definitely more painful.

What I disagree with is the fashion statement part. 

They look dreadful. In fact, they look awful and they're not number one in the safety department. Why on earth do people wear them?

(sorry - posted before I finished)

 

In my experience rigger boots aren't dangerous. It's like anything PPE. As long as they're in good nick and appropriate to the job then they should be ok.

The problem arises when those 2 criteria aren't met.

The regulations and recomendations are very sketchy were riggers are concerned, but most importantly is the fact that they are deemed safe in certain areas of construction, they are however banned in others. They are banned in the rail industry for good reason , lack of ankle support and risk of boot top entrapment against live rails, this i agree with, however they are only banned in main stream construction when indevidual company policy dictats, with this you have no choice.

The real amusing part of this is that on these sites they mostly say that you can wear wellingtons, now a few things spring to mind, uncomfortable , no ankle support and foot rot.

Good riggers are good boots perfectly safe and easy to wear. I understand the issue of removing them in an accident but the boot could simply have been cut of which is the preffered method. It would be the same had the same man had lace up boots, if you dont cut it off the foot you will still have to bend the anke some deggree to remove the boot. If you dont believe me try it.

Having been a site and project manager for more years that i can think of i have no problem with men looking cool and trendy in riggers , i do myself , but its only when they are on the right job, as for trainers they should be banned i wont allow them on my sites, over 20 years in construction tells me that a leather boot of any kind is better and safer , just ask a real biker why you should be wearing leathers in a crash , its the same thing, its not about fashion its about safety. Cetain jobs riggers good, certain jobs riggers bad , its easy really.

The one question you should all ask at your induction or interveiw if the site agent does not tell you is , can i wear my riggers.

Groucho:

Last year a bloke on my site broke his foot while wearing them.

 

If he was wearing different boots, would he still have broken his foot do you think?

The big question here to answer is simple should the man have safer boots or should he have safer feet.

Surely it's a matter of risk assesment.

I wear riggers because I visit a lot of sites and in most cases it means I only have to carry one pair of boots instead of a pair of safety boots and a pair of wellies, nothing to do with fashion.

 

GOOD MAN, now thats using your common sence Fisherman,,,opps sorry keep that quiet we both might get arrested for insinuating someone has used that. Its illegal and dangerous   ,,,,,,,    did no one tell you.

We have blanket bans of rigger boots such as all of the quarrying companies banning them "as they do not give ankle support" The HSE website has case studies from Shank's Waste Disposal stating the ankle support reason with comments like "you wouldn't go for a hike in leather wellies would you" The strange thing is that a recent tv program showing the construction of the new cafe and station at the summit of Snowdon showed many of the construction workers happily hiking up the mountain in snow with their rigger boots on prior to starting a days work (perhaps Darwinian natural selection). A number of construction workers and hauliers have broken ankles and were wearing rigger boots so rigger boots have been blamed for the breakages - not inertia or gravity. I am surprised that wearing of trousers or socks has not been blamed for the breakages as they are probably a common factor in most incidents. The type of safety footwear should be determined following a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the hazards you are trying to protect against such as impact, penetration, crushing, heat, grip etc and not on a generic whim. An earlier post rigger boots were dangerous worn as a fashion item - I rather tend to think that the banning is the fashion item based on innuendo and myth rather than fact or proper research. Most blanket bans are determined by the fear of being sued rather than protecting people.

As a consultant, when asked about what PPE should be worn, my answer is always, "If you think you need it, you need it", the problem is, people are lazy, if goggles are in the van, then that cut can be performed without them, and it's not until something goes wrong that people wish they had worn them.

Why are people so adamant that safety equipment is a bad thing? If you have ever had an incident where equipment has protected you, you will appreciate it more.

identity crisis:

Most blanket bans are determined by the fear of being sued rather than protecting people.

 

Good point.

If you're a company that has been sued in relation to H&S practice it can change your thinking a bit.

A friend of mine had a law suit issued against his company for this ( below ) and it certainly changed there thinking,

A worker came onto site for induction , at induction he was told he must wear safety boots , vis etc.

Man goes out on site to work.

Two weeks later man has honking great lump of concrete fall on his foot, oops foot is crushed.

Man claims against company for accident.

Why concrete fell on foot is not questioned.

Why he was wearing intemeadiate safety boots with only a PLASTIC toe cap was.

Company had to pay compensation for FAILING TO ENSURE CORRECT PPE WAS USED AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.

The result is that the company now treat all staff like idiots and children and stick a magnet on your toes to see if the cap is steel, i suppose it can come in handy with dragging staff in the office for tool box talks. I also know of a case where a company was sued for failing to train staff in hooking trailers to vans after a worker had his trainer clad foot crushed but a jocky wheel. The sad thing is both cases are true and i only wish it was April fools day for the sake of all the people who know better.

One of the first questions the HSE ask when investigating an accident is, was the injured person competant in the operation he was carrying out, followed by a request to produce his training record.

Also very early the question is asked as to whether or not there has been a risk assessment done and a method statement produced. Fail on any of those counts and you could be liable to prosecution. Knowing that you have to ensure that you conform, there is no excuse for not doing. It's particulalry hard on those that manage sites and no amount of salary can compensate for someone elses stupidity, but that is the way of the world now and to be honest sites are safer places than they have ever been. So you could say the end justifies the means and so it should where peoples lives are at stake, but it makes life hard.

 

Fisherman:

no amount of salary can compensate for someone elses stupidity

Now here is a seniment i fully agree with. We live in a changed world in regard to the Hse , 20 years ago H/S was run by big burly men and common sence, now its run on paper work and regulations. The problem is the common sence is not there. We have the the most modern equipment and tools and the strictest of codes to PPE but we still have stupid accidents, we should by now with all the mod cons be 100 per cent accident free , we are not though and most of that is stupidity. People are boged down with regulations and paper work and with this comes a mentality, a mentality that leads poeple to think its all bad, but that is not the case, i am the first to say a huge percentage has been for the good and is to be blunt a life saver, but some of it is only related to the sue me serciety we live in, and some of it is just political, the fact is some of this should be replaced with common sence and education, at all levels. A lot of site managers are still under the misguided thought that they can chose what paper work or regulation is relevant , but this is not the case and then like in the prevoius writing the company is sued for failing to ensure that the boots had steel caps, it was the duty of the management to ensure they were before the work started, but they just accepted a mans word, the problem here being ,do you give them an IQ test to access whether he knows the differance in his boots, no, you asume that as he passed the cscs etc he knows, very dodgy ground me thinks.

A PAUSE FOR THOUGHT; i had to do a tool box talk on " hand arm vibration " , i went armed with the useual stuff and a twist, on the thing called internet i downloaded pictures of the results of HAV  on a man who spent ten years with a concrete breaker pressed against this groin, result, 10 men looking in awe at what there testicles would look like boiled, results , 10 men wearing gloves and useing the breaker away from there body, the same can be applied to any tool box talk and the results are simple if you show a load of crushed , broken bloody feet maybe you will stop 5 out of 10 stupid accidents by stupid poeple.

I have a firm commitement that education is the most pwerful tool in safety, but the paper work needs to compliment it wether we like it or not. The sad thing is the paperwork is a legal requirement the education well thats a differant issue. But on a last note feel free to visit one of my sites but make sure the boots have a steel cap as being told to go away seems to offend even the highest of management, it does seem odd that quite ofen the biggest offenders are in the highest of office, maybe i might start a new thread,,,,,most powerfull men in silly accidents , or please do not use this idiot as your example, all thoughts gratfully accepted.

Most big sites and councils have banned the rigger out of fear.

All or at least most rigger boots sold in the UK must meet the EN345 standards

BSEN345 Safety Footwear standards

The British Standards for classification of safety boot and safety shoe protection is detailed below with the relevant minimum standards that are required for Safety Footwear sold in the UK.

The British standards for safety foot wear are probably the most rigourous in the world.

In each classification we have given where possible a safety boot which falls into each relevant category. 

Toecaps tested to 200 Joule. Classified as S.

SB Safety Basic 200 Joule Protection.

Safety Shoes such as the SS100 safety shoe fall into this basic safety category

SBP Basic safety with midsole penetration protection.  Safety boots such as the Apache Rigger/wellington safety boot AP312 which is also waterproof and the Sterling Steel goodyear welted range of safety boots.

S1 200 Joule Toecap Protection.

Closed seat region (fully enclosed heel). Antistatic properties. Energy absorption of seat region.

Safety shoes such as the mens executive range of safety shoes fall into this catergory, the SS500 stylish shoe and the SS501, SS502 are also ideal for managers safety shoes.

S1P As above with midsole protection

The safety trainer AP302SM from the Apache Industrial Range of safety foot wear falls into this catergory as do the Worksite range of quality work boots

S2 200 Joule Toecap Protection.

Closed seat region (fully enclosed heel). Antistatic properties. Energy absorption of seat region. Plus water penetration and water absorption resistance. 

S3 200 Joule Toecap Protection.

Closed seat region (fully enclosed heel). Antistatic properties. Energy absorption of seat region. Water penetration and water absorption resistance. Plus penetration resistance. Cleated outsole.  Boots from the Apache range are available in this safety boot classification such as the Apache AP300 and the Apache rigger safety boot  - AP305. 

S3WP - As above but waterproof

All the boots in the Cobolt range of safety boots fall into this category such as the Cobolt SS900 safety boot. The Cobolt range have no steel and the combination of Polycarbonate toe caps and kevlar midsole instead of the traditional steel midsole makes for a much lighter safety boot but with the advantage of been 30% lighter.

S4: 200 Joule Toecap Protection.

All rubber or all polymeric footwear with antistatic properties. Energy absorption of seat region. 

S5: 200 Joule Toecap Protection.

All rubber or all polymeric footwear with antistatic properties. Energy absorption of seat region. Plus penetration resistance. Cleated outsole.

Active you have done a superb job there showing all that riggers are good safe boots and in the right job are a good piece of footwear, your hard work on this subject goes nicely with the explanation on the fact that they are only banned on certain typs work site and with good reasons and helps all in information fit together,,,,but,,,,,you failed to anwser one import question,,,,,,now be carefull who you upset with your answer..........................

                       FASHION STATEMENT OR GOOD SAFE WORK BOOT,,,,

"Or the safety trainer shoe a stylish modern design for the younger tradesman such as the Dewalt safety boots and safety trainers range or from the Sterling Safety Range.

We also have the high quality Goodyear welted safety boot with Midsole protection from GWBMS"

If I was advertising on this Forum, I too would possibly assure that I did a "Superb job" ???

Fashion statement it is then.

 Yes i must conceed that Actives answer does contsitute an advert but at least he has given some definision to the fact that riggers do in fact meet the required legal standard.....maybe he could have put it in a more , less adverty style, but hey ho !.

Surley its the information thats important as this goes a long way to answer the original question on this thread and helps clarify the other information posted . I thought the idea was to help poeple in these forums not just critise all that they write, that is not informative, or  helpfull and does not even class as funny.

It seems that some poeple can only write on here if they wish to be derogatory, not the best way to go me thinks.

Folks,

Had I spotted Active's post earlier, I would probably have deleted it straight off, as it constitutes spam. And it's his/her first post.

However, as at least two people have said they found it useful, I have let the post stand, but edited out the advertising aspects.

Cheers,

Will.

Deepest apologies from a sad northern tecnophobe...I did try to copy and paste into notepad prior to posting which in theory would have taken out all the advertising links. Clearly it didnt work ..perhaps becauce I am clueless with all this tecnology etc .... I was trying to clarify the European standards and apologise if I have ruffled some feathers and upset some others it was not my intention to advertise.. I was merely trying to help

Hi Active,

No worries - your reply was a helpful contribution to the discussion.

Sorry if my editing seemed a bit draconian. Unfortunately there has been quite a lot of spam (ie. advertising) on here in the past and I have to treat it all in the same fashion I'm afraid.

Hope it doesn't discourage you from joining in other discussions.

Cheers,

Will.

I am not sure they are fashionable personally I think they look terrible, the first thing I think of after rigger boots is a builders crack! lol

You can get so many boots and shoes now I really dont see the need for rigger boots, if they are so important please mr rigger boot maker man, MAKE SOME BLACK ONES!. So I dont see them so much. They are dangerous I have had many mishaps wearing them but thankfully nothing serious. Dickies and dewalt boots are my faves now. much more comfortable and look miles better.

 

They are not banned though loads of blokes wear them at our place, intrestingly enough they are all getting on I would say the age range for riggers is about 35 to 55 the younger lads wear more modern stuff.

 

 

 

Het dont knock it untill you have seen my crack, its as trendy as my riggers.

They are good safe and comfortable boots in the right job at the right time, they are definatly not right for all jobs and are definatly not safe for all jobs.

Take it from me i know and i love my riggers , but safe and secure is more important

Cool, Got any pictures like? I'm kidding!

 

Yes I suppose there is a right tool for the right job.