Steel Toe Work Boots

There's the law and there's reality.

Ever try to pull four nearly-severed toes out from under a crushed steel built-in safety cup?

I haven't, but heard from ER people that's what's been documented.
 
Without them there'd be even more crushed toes requiring amputation. Like seatbelts they can result in an injury but more often protect against one. Why is it we'll attempt to justify reality being less than the law? Why not say that's the law but we're going to go one step above that?

Recovering from a workplace accident in my 20s I saw victims at the WSB rehab hospital who had horrible injuries despite all the personal and equipment safety measures. For the most part they will mitigate injuries and protect us against the minor ones that had nothing been in place been serious.

Safe work practices coupled with ppe and equipment safety measures reduce injuries.




Whatever we believe we'll find the evidence to support it.
 
It's not PPE complete, it's the individual issue of steel domes over the toes for tree work. The issue is the cup - when crushed, severs the toes at the second joint because it acts like a knife edge. Also complicates recovery of the foot in the boot and the boot if jammed under the weight, a non-armored boot can slip out easier, crushed toes or not.
 
Since i don't work with huge industrial equipment that can crush a steel toe cap, I will stil wear them. Also, if you actually have something large enough to land close enough to you to crush the steel cap in a way to sever your toes, I think you are also going to have other problems beside missing half your foot. Think about it. A steel cap isn't meant to withstand a freak accident of heavy weight, but to mitigate the injuries from more frequent light load drops and accidental kicks.
 
I hear ya...haven't had the problem myself but do know that stiff boots, steel shanks, and hard lug soles are more dangerous for me up in the tree than what I wear for climbing (unless it's a spike job). Safety within my control means using what'll render the least threat topside, where the potential for trauma is ten times greater than on the ground, the way we work. By this, a broad application of one standard to include all the workers on the job is only an efficient yet not carefully thought-out mandate. Understanding it's statistical extropolation from reports, it still lumps together all employees as performing identical movements.
 
Hello all. How about steel toe benefits in cut protection? Does anyone know if the steel toe will hold up against contact with a running chain saw should that type of mishap occur? I know the concern is crushing injuries but it's just a thought.
 
Steel toes do protect against cuts. composite doesn't. There are some studies of this. There are some nice hiker style safety toed boots out there.

Like all PPE it takes some adjustment to get accustomed to wearing it all the time. But it is doable.

From Gempler's website

"The protective footwear you choose must comply with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard F2413-05, formerly the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) Z41-1999. This standard covers minimum requirements for the design, performance, testing and classification of protective footwear. Footwear certified as meeting ASTM F2413-05 must first meet the requirements of Section 5.1 “Impact Resistant Footwear” and Section 5.2 “Compression Resistant Footwear”. Then the requirements of additional sections such as metatarsal protection, conductive protection, electric shock protection, static dissipative protection and protection against punctures can be met.

Protective footwear can meet all of the requirements of the ASTM standard or specific elements of it, as long as it first meets the requirements for impact and compression resistance. All footwear manufactured to the ASTM specification must be marked with the specific portion of the standard with which it complies. One shoe of each pair must be clearly and legibly marked (stitched in, stamped on, pressure-sensitive label, etc.) on either the surface of the tongue, gusset, shaft, or quarter lining."

AND

"The letters F2413 reference the performance requirement for foot protection. The additional digits following the standard designation indicate the year of the standard to which the protective footwear complies, for example: 05 refers to 2005.
M = Footwear designed for a male.
F = Footwear designed for a female.
I/75 = Impact rating of 75 (foot pounds)
C/75 = Compression rating of 75 (2500 lbs. of pressure)"


Is it likely that we would be exposed to a load that exceeds the standards? Possibly but not to the extent that forgoing steel toes makes sense.

There are some nice hiker style safety toed boots out there.

Like all PPE it takes some adjustment to get accustomed to wearing it all the time. But it is doable.


Here's a good real world example of steel toe vs. non

Two employees were separating a sawn 460kg sandstone slab, using a bolster and hammer, from a
sandstone block which was sitting on two wooden sleepers. Both employees were standing in front of the
slab and each had one of their feet resting on a sleeper. Unexpectedly the slab slid down about 150mm
onto the sleepers striking the toe area of the employees' boots. The employee who was wearing
gumboots without steel toe caps had the ends of two toes severed while the other employee who was
wearing steel toe capped boots sustained a broken toe.

The link
to the site featuring this story.
 
I've tried the hikers w/ steel toe, but like all Vibram and other soles, too hard a rubber. I principly climb rough-barked hardwoods. I like to not scar or tear it in light of disease potential...the softer the sole the more effective grip and twice the tree/foot contact surface. Much safer at altitude. In smooth-bark situations, I like to not rip thru to the cambium, impossible with lug soles.

I'd probably win thru an appeal process, jamming the hearings w/ minute evidence if I'm ever cited, if my insurance would dis a claim based on footwear worn above, where accident specifics cite nothing I can find regarding cut toes, crushed toes, or quarried limestone blocks falling on my foot.

Far as the ground workers, if I could envelope them in Blaze-orange titanium hard-shell armor w/ bottled air from Fiji and air conditioning, I would but I won't.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drove a Rayco 85 over them without a bat of the eye....

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha, I know the feeling. I'm waiting to see what a Vermeer 1152 feels like. Your considerably farther away from the wheels so it might be a while. Its not running over your toes that hurts, its when you start up over your shin/ankle.

Carolina 8" loggers, thick leather,comfortable,waterproof.

I cut the bone off the side of my ankle splitting wood. Wanted to split 2 logs to get the fire going, and then was going to go "suit up to split" I ALWAYS WEAR MY BOOTS NOW-ALWAYS. LEARN FROM MY MISTAKE!
 
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cf...mageID=15964586

1152031.jpg
 
OUCH, at least you learned your lesson.

It's ironic, women are willing to suffer wearing spiked heels, men are willing to suffer wearing comfortable boots.
 
If I walked alongside and ran a stumper, bucked felled timber all day, manned a firewood processor...then high-top loggers w/ lugs and steel would suit me fine.

I browsed "myths about steel-toed boots" last night and found some compelling stories, some interesting ones, and a few fictional incedents on the issue. Seems like about 50/50 on the question of risk/benefit. The military sure thinks negative about 'em while the railroads can't function without.

I'm reminded about gloves, more specifically the "rope-workers" in the 30-40 dollar range. Promoted as "needed" instead of mandated as of yet, but when the last of the branches are cleared and the little twigs left to pick-up, these beauties fall apart by the second job of the day. They look cool though, and may show the public we're edept at outfitting ourselves with the lastest and best (like the French Bicycle shorts necessary to look like a winner instead of a dork).
 
Big difference between the gloves and boots.

Like I said earlier, you'll find the evidence to support whatever you believe regardless.


I tried the gloves and found there wasn't a cost benefit compared to less expensive ones. That doesn't mean I don't wear gloves.

Oakwilt are you a cyclist? While I don't wear the "French bicycle shorts" for everyday riding I did for training rides. Much easier on the crotch and inner thighs. I didn't look like a winner specially when I crossed the finish line last!
 
Decades ago, when Schwinn made the Paramount, I rode all night long. Bluejean cut-offs, Jack Purcell sneakers and a tank top. Rode my first "foreign" bike in Tokyo..a Takamine, lot lighter but that means less torque and glide I thought. If you can train on a heavyweight, it seems your workout is more effective.

Pigskin gloves here, sometimes. Day or two not wearing them, it's not bad bare handed. I
 
steel toe saved my foot about 5 yrs ago i was about 50ft in the air and my foot got slammed pretty bad. it was broke but dr said if i didnt have steel toe i probally would have crushed my foot. the force was so bad it ripped thre steel loose later on i pulled steel right out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom