FEATURE WORKPLACE SAFETY
TURNING HEADS
Chris Tidy, technical and training specialist at Centurion Safety Products, explains how his company is
challenging head protection standards and fitting the needs of workers today.
H
aving rigorous, reliable and well- researched standards in place for personal
protective equipment is vital both for safety and for reassurance. By ensuring that products adhere to set standards, the wearer is able to see at a glance that their helmet is guaranteed to provide the correct level of protection and mitigate the risks associated with their role. It is, however, vital that standards are constantly
reviewed, challenged and assessed to ensure that they are able to deliver the levels of protection required in today’s workplaces. The first formal standard for hard hats – The
Light Duty Safety Helmet Standard – was introduced in the UK in 1954. This global first was a huge result brought about at least in part by the hard work and dedication of Australian neurosurgeon Sir Hugh Cairns. Cairns had researched brain injuries and campaigned for the formalisation of standards since the death of the infamous T.E. Lawrence, who achieved international fame under the moniker ‘Lawrence of Arabia’. In 1935, Lawrence was injured in a motorcycle accident and died of his injuries six days later aged just 46. Cairns was adamant that if Lawrence had been wearing a helmet, the accident would not necessarily have proven fatal. He worked tirelessly on his research which was subsequently published in 1941 in the British Medical Journal. This all lead to the first motorcycle standard in 1952 which was followed two years later by the first hard hat standard.
A LEGACY STANDARD, MADE TO LAST
Cairns’ work has left a lasting legacy and is the origin of the modern-day
standards for hard hats, the most common of which is EN397. Testing for this standard
22 SUMMER 2021 | INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE
is focused on ensuring the wearer is protected from falling objects: a linear force is directed onto a helmet from height. In most instances, the helmet remains intact, thereby proving its effectiveness. However, it has been clear that EN397 has
needed to change for several years. Design restrictions perpetuated by the standard have held back technological advances in helmets that could add style and comfort for the wearer, and – most importantly of all – provide additional layers of protection, EN397 assumes that biggest risk to our heads
comes from falling objects, however statistics show that this is a common misconception. In actuality, the most common type of accident to occur on-site is a slip, trip or fall, which is much more likely to cause a rotational injury rather than the linear impact EN397 has been developed to protect against. To put this into context, figures from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report that 29 per cent of workplace injuries in the UK occur from slips, trips and falls from the same level . A rotational brain injury comes as the result
of a rapid change of the rotational velocity of the head. This rapid change can be caused by a direct hit to the helmet or skull, or by an indirect hit to the shoulder leading to a rotational motion of the head and forcing a twist or sheering of the brain within the skull.
ADAPTING STANDARDS TO FIT THE NEEDS OF TODAY We all know our most valuable asset to protect is our head, because that is the bit that works
/ INDUSTRIALCOMPLIANCE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
