Pictures and Safety

True, but remember how PPE is viewed. If you are likely to receive an injury that PPE could prevent, then you are supposed to wear it.

The ankle bone is exposed and somewhat sensitive to trauma (Read: hurts like hell when you hit it!). It is probable that an exposed ankle could get injured based on what we do, the specific hazards of working around brush and logs all day. Can't say exactly why, other than that.

I am sure it was a days-long discussion at some point at OSHA.
 
Correct, Nick. Those white shoes that Brian was wearing offer no less protection from a running chainsaw that do many of the hiking boots that I love to wear for pruning, even removals, and on gaffs, as do many of us these days....And their ankle support isn't much different..for that matter, most lineman's boots offer very little of that.

For that matter, a leather pair of Wesco's offer only a tad more protection from a running saw. Only chain saw boots, as is required in some places, like Ontario, I think, and Europe, offer substantial protection.

Therefore, really, the only thing that ya'll have to gripe about on my photos is our lax chap usage....and we're working on that.....personally, I've rarely worn them, which I know isn't right....it's just that, 35 years of usually working without them is my history.....not good, have had a couple of close calls, such as laying a saw on my leg...or as my leg came up, while walking, the saw laid down... cut the pants a couple of times.....

But I do have three pairs on the truck, and just got a second pair of full length ones. My next purchase will be some of the fancy pants...SIP 5 or whatever they're called....
 
Whatever, Tim...when I see pics of Euros wearing CSP on one arm, shoulder, and those bulky, laughable gloves...I...well..

laugh....

As Nick said, just about any part of the body could be exposed to a running errant chainsaw....so, where do we stop....is weaing a coat of mail in the cards?

I don't have as much of a problem with PPE issues as that most recent "directive" that OSHA put out...not even close....that was moronic, to use a tame word...
 
What it comes down to, is that safety is a choice we make. We all know what the risks are and we either choose to take unnecessary risks, or not. There are many things that are not in our control in the workplace, to me it makes sense to decide to reduce risk when and where I can. The decisions we make affect us, our family, our friends and co-workers.

The use of PPE is one of the most basic things that we can do to stay safe. It is relatively easy to put a hard hat on before doing tree work, yet many do not. When I see crews not using basic PPE, I wonder what else they are doing that is not safe.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sold on the running shoe thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol!

If your wearing running shoes for treework you might as well just go ahead and get a tattoo on your forehead that says, 'I'm an idiot'
 
[ QUOTE ]


TMW

PS I am off to St. Louis tomorrow for the EHAP Train the Trainer Workshop...and whatever other trouble I can get myself into.
wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Ho Silver!
bud.gif


Its fun reading the arguments we went through 20 years ago in the UK.

My advice when apply PPE measures, is make sure its applied appropriately. i.e. what are the causes of injury and why. For example, for years in the UK we had to wear chainsaw protection to the back of the left hand, because thats where the injuries were.

How the hell do people cut the back of their left hand!!!??? By dicing small logs with a top handled saw in one hand and a log over the knee in the other. Or they are related to old machines with no front hand guard or chainbrakes and kicking back (hand slips off or goes up for protection to the face.

The gloves aren't effective anyway, and are lethal in the wet.

We don't use old saw designs and keep two hands on the saw. We don't need to wear the gloves any longer.

Its in everyones interests to ensure the hazards and risks are properly appraised before control measures are applied.

Safety gear is big business when the government states it must be worn. Quite an incentive to apply it.

If PPE is being used as a substitute for progressive training measures, forget it. IT WILL NOT WORK.

There are huge risk differences between novices and experienced pros that use sound techniques. PPE should be tailored according to these risks in the interests of efficiency. Overdressing can seriously reduce mobility and increase heat, causing other ergonomic and physiological risks.
 
I Wescos that I 'walked' a saw across the toes were the Kevlar layered ones. So I was lucky that day.

I agree with the original thread starter who said that advertisements should display proper PPE, as the general public views these adverts.

However, according to the published statistics of where chain saw injuries happen on the body, the ankle area has less than say, the foot, or the hand.

I think that the original thread starter here is a bit mislead, overall their intent is right on the mark; encouraging folks to use PPE, and work safely.

I would like to say that,
Long, or short, chain saw chaps are very effective in helping to protect against chainsaw injuries.
It is misguided to declare that the shorter chaps are not 'proper' chain saw protection.

facts08.htm_txt_Injuryman2.gif
 
ANSI Z133

3.4.8 Chain-saw–resistant leg protection shall be worn while operating a chain saw during ground operations.

If this is so...define your terms as Shigo said.

What is the leg? I think that most people would say that the leg goes from hip to ankle. Below the ankle is the foot. Which part of the body is supposed to be covered?
 
[ QUOTE ]
ANSI Z133

3.4.8 Chain-saw–resistant leg protection shall be worn while operating a chain saw during ground operations.

If this is so...define your terms as Shigo said.

What is the leg? I think that most people would say that the leg goes from hip to ankle. Below the ankle is the foot. Which part of the body is supposed to be covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was very clear in his post, Tom.
"Chaps that end just below the knee are not acceptable. They should cover to the boots".

I personally think it is wonderfull to bust the chops of some of the advertisers. I have seen some strange pictures of people working even by TCIA!

However, I don't agree with a witch hunt. Or telling people that one kind of chaps is 'not acceptable' when that is just an opinion. Sets up a bad relationship with all parties when the real issue is to try and get folks to protect themselve.


Having said all that,
I one hand my saw daily, and most prob. wont change.
 
Baloney.....That's not to say that I like having guys show up in them.. but, as I said, many of them are leather and high tops, which makes them no different than hiking boots, which many of us wear.....and not kevlar ones.

Someday, I might look into cut resistant boot, if comfortable, functional ones could be found [/list] ....It is surely not impossible to get careless and cut a foot... I've nicked my boots a few times over the years...just nicks, but awakenings? You bet.
 
Just wanted to add that I support what Tim is trying to achieve, especially the advert part. But no-one should dress up just for the cameras - it should be natural.

I've never really understood the American fascination with chaps, and I can't see what difference a few more inches makes to the leg???

I always feel naked without helmet, ear plugs, eye pro, front protection chainsaw trousers and chainsaw and toe protected leather boots.

I don't think anyone can seriously question the sense in using these items. What may cause resistance is comfort and design.

These are the trousers and boots I wear:

Husqvarna protech trousers type A
http://www.abbeypro.co.uk/subprod/husqvarna-clothing-0001016.aspx

The Newport Boot
http://www.safetytechnology.co.uk/arborist/footwear

I can't rate them highly enough, because both are lightweight and fit perfectly.

The trousers zip open at the back to vent when having a cool down, and it really works.

I don't bother with the zip feature on the boots. The sole is sturdy and protected for support on spurs. High enough for good support but great flexibility to the ankle, and good overlap with the trousers so sawdust doesn't get in. Extra material with no seam on the inside for protection fom spurs. A wide toe area so the toe protection doesn't rub and provides space for proper supportive insoles.

Just some pointer on what works for me.
 
What OSHA says about chain saw leg protection (it is from the logging standard, but that is what they are currently trying to hold us to anyway).

1910.266(d)(1)(iv)

The employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, and assure that each employee who operates a chain saw wears leg protection constructed with cut-resistant material, such as ballistic nylon. The leg protection shall cover the full length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg to protect against contact with a moving chain saw.

Exception: This requirement does not apply when an employee is working as a climber if the employer demonstrates that a greater hazard is posed by wearing leg protection in the particular situation, or when an employee is working from a vehicular mounted elevating and rotating work platform meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.68.
 
And, if you don't like it when I say it, here it is from an OSHA CHSO:

"We are talking LEG (not thigh) protection

1910.266(d)(1)(iv) ...The leg protection shall cover the full length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg...

And if you cut down trees, you as arborists are covered under the logging standard."
 
I hear what you are saying, TMW. It is not that I disagree with you about what is safe, or prudent.
However, should an accident occur while wearing 'normal' chaps (ones that are commonly sold which cover to mid-calf), then the lawsuits would come pouring in. Stihl & Husky would pull the ads for these chaps overnight. They have done it with certain ads before.

Just cannot see that Stihl or Husky would even sell the shorter chaps if it was indeed the 'law' to wear longer chaps.

But this is getting away from the intent of your idea to promote advertisers to show PPE in their adverts.

If I was an advertiser, and you called me nitpicking over the length of chaps shown in some advert, I would tell you to be happy that my advert. showed a worker wearing PPE at all.
I would certainly NOT call you for advice or proofreading future ads because you seem more focused on these little points than an overall desire to promote safety in an impartial constructive way.

Do you see my point? No offense meant, just responding to your original post of attempting to raise the standard in adverts.
 
[ QUOTE ]
1910.266(d)(1)(iv)
... shall cover the full length of the thigh to the top of the boot on each leg ...

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read this, I initially interpreted it to mean the top of the boot on the foot - indicating full-leg protection. Upon re-reading it, however, the "on each leg" seems to indicate that it means to the top of the boot collar. ... or, maybe it is to prevent using one-legged chap coverage?
 
And here we go again. Inevitably these discussions always graduate to this. The safety pros citing the black and white of the hard written rules and the other side attempting to show the color grey. And it's always weighted to the person pounding on the book.

If a worker is wearing PPE on the job why nit-pick'em on a technicality. Least their making a conscious effort.

Oh, do cigarette butts count as appropriate hearing protection?
 
The image and impression that safety nit pickers are bothersome [I know that there is a better word] is troubling.

There are rules and regs in place that will be used as a reference in case of an accident or safety inspection. If not, we'd be arguing whether a yard is equal to the length of three of the king's feet or is it actually three agreed upon standard length feet?

Many times I've talked with editors from TCI magazine about the ad copy that manufacturers provide. The copy often doesn't have minimal required PPE or safety practices/procedures. The person who does the copy layout at TCI magazine has a whole file of images that can be Photoshopped into the provided copy. The advertisers are told that there were corrections made. They also get the suggestion that they should do their own corrections.

Calf length or ankle length...does it matter? Ask someone who has survived injury because of wearing proper length pants/chaps. Whether a company sells chaps/pants that could be too short is irrelevant. It's up to the saw operator to use the proper gear.

Butts are hearing pro, but, are they tested and rated to proper attenuation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom