UKH

It strikes me that our behaviours, my own included are odd and irrational. 

Helmets are often removed at the base of the crag, ot worn when not climbing. However the base of the crag is where you are most likely to be hit when climbing. 

I have watched videos of celebrity climbers where the helmeted leader is cleaning on route, yet the be layer bare headed. Surely it is safer for the team the other way around. 

My own foible is that I don't wear a lid when soloing. 

And then there was the babysitter a number of years ago, helmeted, directly under the crag, holding the baby, "look at mummy all the way up there", mummy helmeted too. Didn't take too kindly when I challenged her. 

I guess what I am saying is helmets are more important at the bottom of the crag than when climbing. 

Watching a fellow climber bleed profusely from his head after being struck by a small stone caused me to rethink helmet wearing. Just put a lid on, at the crag, on the crag. And as you say, especially so when belaying. Earlier this year whilst climbing on Raven crag in Langdale we noted two guys climbing an adjacent route (Bilberry Buttress), neither wore a helmet. The leader bashed his head on a small downward facing spike of rock and started to bleed rather a lot. Had to be lowered off and have a bandage applied around his head. After a rest he carried on climbing. Lucky him, but a helmet on his head would have avoided this completely. Each to their own though.

Maybe you might like to rethink that foible? In the 1960's I was seconding a crack climb on Pavey Ark when I was hit on the head by a stone. It briefly knocked me out and I came to to find myself dangling on the rope about 200 ft up fighting for breath as the rope had ridden up under my rib cage, and the leader who had been belaying me was shouting down at me asking if I was ok?

No helmets, nor harnesses in those days.

If I had been soloing, I'd have been dead. 

Or anywhere on the crag. If you're multi pitch climbing for half the route there's more crag above then below you.

Soloing, it's arguably more prudent to have a helmet, the risk and consequences are greater, and no second to help you. 

Given most accidents seem to occur in descents, helmets should maybe be kept on till on level ground ? I know of a down climbing fatality where helmet was removed at the top of the route. 

A nice little video with some sobering falls in it:

youtube.com/watch?v=s5ZLd-kCCRs&

Totally agree. I started trad climbing at Wintours leap, so quickly learned to put my helmet on during the approach, and keep it on until the walk out.

I saw a group there once who were sitting down to eat their lunch, helmets by their sides, when a screwgate with belay plate attached landed in the middle of them. We had no idea anyone was on the route above. They moved, but still didn't think to put their helmets on.

I was sitting (unhelmeted) at the bottom of Clogwyn y Grochan many years ago when a helmet (dropped from the top, I've always assumed) landed on a boulder a couple of metres away. The irony of coming within an inch (ok, two metres) of being killed by a falling helmet stays with me to this day.

I think your chances of being killed by a modern helmet falling from any height are quite remote, but I guess an old-school Joe Brown fibreglass cannonball might have been a different story!

I saw just such an ironic accident at work a few years back, one person in an ill-fitting hard hat leaned over a scaffolding handrail and shouted down to his mate, who looked up just in time to catch the brim of the falling hat on the bridge of his nose. 

He wasn't badly hurt but got a nasty little cut that seemed to gush an extraordinary amount of blood.  If it had been a scene in an elf'n'safety training video I would have thought they were laying it on a bit thick for effect, like Staplerfahrer Klaus.

I wish the boffins would stop wasting time developing useless novelty things like 'Smart' phones and 'Apps' and develop a forcefield helmet that one could wear all the time.

That would help when you fall over drunk at the pub.

Alex Huber's solo of the Brandler-Hasse was mentioned in another thread and I was struck by the fact he wore a helmet. Eminently sensible, I thought (in a relative sort of way).

Some people learn from the mistakes of others and some don't.  I didn't wear a helmet for my first few years of climbing, until i visited a friend who had fallen off one of the Embankment routes at Millstone.

He had an inch deep crater in his head.  I had to write his obituary a year later.

I've worn a helmet ever since.

At work as part of the site works I do I have to wear full Hi-Viz trousers and arms, safety glasses, cut protection gloves, steel toe cap boots (not wellingtons or rigger boots....), and of course a hard hat.  I think the risk of my job justifies the need for all that and I will happily wear it all.

However, for some reason when I get home I end up finding myself doing DIY barefoot, trying to squeeze angle grinders into tiny places and all manner of H&S violations involving ladders.  I quite often have to remind myself that I would never do this at work, so why at home.  And the same applies to climbing.

I was on the Cuillin not so long ago and lots of people wear wearing them when scrambling.  But then on something like Tryfan you very rarely see anyone wearing one - the risk is just the same, more maybe with the amount of visitors? 

Just remember. Danger never takes a day off. 

You don't need a science-fiction helmet for that, you can wear an ordinary helmet all the time.  If you want to.

I have one work client who take a bizarre, over-the-top but not actually thought-through approach to PPE, including wearing a helmet whenever you're even one step off the ground. Even in the middle of summer when you're dripping with sweat and there's no head-hitting dangers, and being blinded at height by dripping sweat and falling off the ladder becomes more of a risk than...whatever undefined hazard the helmet is supposed to be protecting against.

So I wasn't entirely surprised when a permanently-installed projector failed one night just before home time and needed swapping out. Two helmets available, two people including the person responsible for said policies three steps up stepladders with said helmets...and two people stood directly under the ~20kg projector to receive it as it was delicately de-rigged. Errr....!?

I feel a lot of the time like people deal with helmets and PPE by rote rather than by assessment of their present risks. Both in climbing and in industry. Helmets on ay the bottom of the crag, and especially with climbers above, is a no-brainer. Particularly when modern helmets are so comfortable as to feel like they're not there at all. But, of course, it's personal choice at the end of the day.

I can't comment on your industry or what you do for work.  But for the nature of what we do its just easier to blanket rule it.  There is no problem then of "I didn't realise this was a helmet activity" or someone (probably me...) just getting on with something as they left there helmet somewhere and by the time they go and get it and come back they could of just done the job and "its never happened to me anyway...". 

I always keep mine on in bed. Not worth taking risks.

Soloing is risky anyway.  Anyone who is soloing has accepted higher risk than they could otherwise accept if they instead led* the route with protection.  Thus I don't see a great issue with them choosing not to wear a lid - in the end, if you don't want risk, don't solo.

* Give or take "leading" badly protected routes which basically *is* soloing.

Would you not argue that its about risk management though?

Soloing is riskier, so you reduce the risk by training, by becoming better and more skilled etc. - that to an extent makes it safer (manages the risk). 

What you cant account for is the unaccountable (the random rock fall).  You cant prepare for them, you cant train yourself to stop them - the only thing you can do is protect yourself from them. 

It is, yes, and thus totally the individual's choice.

You can't account for holds failing either.  The sensible mitigation for that is to climb with a rope, or to boulder with pads.

Soloing deliberately removes protection that any sensible risk assessment would not remove in order to gain "intangibles" such as a feeling of freedom.  As such I don't see why a helmet would not be fair game too.

Actually you can and most people do both when soloing and climbing with ropes by things like visually assessing the holds, physically testing it, having knowledge and experience of the rock type and the venue, changing climbing style to take into account possible hold failure by not relying on a single hold and as far as possible not using multiple holds on the same single feature.

Although you can make an assessment for the chance of random rockfall I think it's harder to do this accurately and there's little you can do if it happens when soloing except as was mentioned to wear a helmet.

OK, forgive, here's a slight tangent then (related to topic by the behaviour and psychology of designing and buying a helmet)

So we want our helmets to be lighter right? It seems the modern solution of the manufacturers is to cut out bigger holes from the helmet to the extent some seem to be almost more hole than helmet. Now I can see that that makes it nice and light and ventilated. Am I the only one who's wondered how much all those holes compromised the whole point of the thing in the first place though? It seems a bit of a lottery hoping the falling rock will hit your helmet and not one of the holes doesn't it? 

I notice it most while sport climbing. While not wearing a helmet may (or may not, I don't know) be fine on Limestone, a lot of the sport crags round here in NE Scotland are conglomerate. 

Not wearing a helmet at Kirrie hill or Rob's reed seems totally idiotic to me yet its a normal sight at these crags amongst both beginner and experienced climbers. I'd have thought bits of sandstone and peebles coming off in your hands or seen strewn around the base of the crag would be enough to make people reconsider.

Just in the last two years I've had a mate injure his ankle when a handhold blew at kirrie and another mate take a whipper when a foothold blew at robs reed when he was resting after the crux. Both times sizeable bits came off the wall that you certainly wouldn't want landing on your head.

I don't think that is the case because of the top impact part of the testing. Otherwise we would have climbing helmet that look more like non-aero cycling helmets with hole all over. Climbing helmets can only have ventilation around the side and back.

Don't apply that logic to Peak limestone if you ever come down this way! Most of the easier stuff is on quarried limestone, and not having a helmet seems a really bad decision.

Ok so holey helmets are great as long as you keep your head completely vertical at all times  

I had exactly the same experience at wallabarrow in the duddon about 25 years ago, a helmet falling the full height of the crag missed me by less than a meter.

If you are going to take helmet off when reaching the top of a crag, don't place it round side down, unless the top of the. Crag is very flat.

I've found that the wind whistling through the holes can make communication difficult - have put gaffer tape over the holes in mine !

A mate knocked his helmet off the top of the crag after climbing on Cadair Idris.  On descending he went went looking for and found it in a gully. Next meet I saw him on, he was wearing the helmet and he’d put tape across it in a cross shape to hold it together.

When I started climbing a helmet was part of the uniform, and one of the first bits of gear I owned (probably before a harness*, and definitely before rock boots).  It's always been second nature to wear one, including when sports climbing (the goats on Kalymnos can often send down loose stones).  Then they slipped out of fashion, and while they now seem to be coming back I do see a tendency to wear them only when the climber perceives a possible risk, which may not reflect the actual risk.  It's usually the first thing I put on and last off, especially at crags like Castle Naze which has a notoriously loose top.

* a bowline around the waist, before you ask.  Rock boots were things to aspire to when you got good enough to deserve them. 

Yeah I wasn't saying its fine on limestone. I was saying that I've done zero Limestone sport climbing and see plenty videos of climbers not wearing helmets so don't really have a clue what the norm is. If/When I find myself in that situation, I'll likely revert to wearing a helmet as I've always done even if that makes me a bit less cool.

IIRC helmets are Only tested with impact of stones in mind not for protection in a fall? Though it obviously does that too in many situations.   If I buy a helmet I want it to pass whatever tests are recommended and be as light as as poss and probably as far as the manufacturers are concerned the holes help to achieve the latter (personally not bothered about ventilation). I've definitely been saved from head injury twice, once by a head first ground fall in a 1960's Compton Mark II (this was a climbing helmet made to BS standards for motor cyclists, though ridiculously heavy by modern standards).

Saw exactly the same thing happen at one of the crags in Cala Gonone - a group sat down facing away from the crag, no-one wearing a helmet, miraculously no-one was hit and it had fallen a long way...

I think, but am very definitely not certain, they have updated the regulations with swing fall protection in mind. Even if I'm wrong and that's not in the UIAA and CE regs, definitely some of the companies are thinking that way now with their designs. I presume MIPS in climbing helmets is more aimed at your head hitting things than it is falling things hitting your head, although I guess it could help in both situations. 

My sense is that natural limestone, at least around here in the Peak, while not impeccable is a lot more solid, but the quarried stuff can be awful. Although I have to hold my hands up to spending too much times in old quarries of dubious repute, mainly because I'm not good enough to climb the hard routes on the natural stuff. I was climbing a not terribly good little route called Tiddlebum (5b) in Goddard's Quarry as my warm up yesterday. At the top a plate of rock - hence with sharp edges had just peeled away from rest of the rock and came away at touch. I grabbed it chucked it clear but that is very normal. When it was Sarah's go she pulled off another big chunk of the starting holds. I swear the route was considerably easier when I first did it last year!

I fully accept this is very much an acquired taste, but it keeps me off the streets and from vandalising bus stops etc.  

The obsession with helmets as protection against falling objects always puzzles me.  Bar none, of the several bad head injuries I've seen, all were caused by inversion in a fall or upon landing.

I mean you're right in general but a little context would be helpful.. you'd have to delve in to what dislodged the stone.. belayer? Rope? Gear wiggling about? It'd be highly unusual to have something just come loose and fall at that moment without an external force.

Bit like laws in the uk insisting motorcycle riders wear helmets when the design standard is to protect in a crash at 30 miles an hour (good luck finding a 30 mile an hour button on a motorbike - not what they are made for)

wear a helmet if it makes you feel safe - judging others for their risk assessment differing from yours or worse trying to force others one way or another I can’t understand, especially in a sport that’s about freedom and individuality.

It does happen though. Have you ever ice climbed? If you climb ice, stuff falls. It's just almost impossible to avoid. I've been clonked on the helmet by big bits of ice my own tool had just dislodged. 

Edit: I've just realised that might be the subconscious reason I've been spending lots of time in Goddard's - it reminds me of ice climbing when I lived in the north! 😆

That's like saying - an umbrella is an odd tool to keep one dry in the rain.

Helmets work. We don't have to wear one, but as they are so light and comfortable nowadays and may actually save us from damaging our brain it seems like a reasonably sensible idea. 

I don't think that's what he saying at all. I took he means in the accidents he has seen the helmet protects against the head hitting the ground or the rock in a swinging fall. If you climb on natural grit for example it's incredibly rare for things to fall from above, beyond when numpties drop something. But go to a chossy quarry and stuff falling from above is far more likely.

I agree, it is both odd and irrational.  Like many, I tend to not wear a helmet when sport climbing, unless there's some sort of extenuating circumstance.

A helmet wearing partner I met up with once berated me, justifyably,  for this.  The same partner then also berated me for "cheating" by using a clip stick to clip to the second bolt on the snappy bit of 30m limestone we were about to climb, as this (apparently) reduced the challenge (same climber was happy to use my rope and efforts on top rope though).  Risking myself by not wearing a helmet was unacceptable.  Reducing the risk to myself by preventing potential decking was also unacceptable. 

Then there's bouldering....

Yes, thinking about helmets got me on to cycling and motorcycling.

On my road bike, I frequently travel at speeds unattainable by a 50cc motorbike, yet I wear little more than underwear and a polystyrene cup on my head vs leathers and a full face helmet for the motorcyclist.

But, but, but, motorcycling is dangerous... 

This whole discussion is really meaningless, without accurate statistics for accidents in climbing. Everyone seems to have a tale of a stone falling and hitting a person, sandwich, unworn helmet (the helmet is a stone magnet myth), etc etc.
But I have no idea how many people climbing in the UK have actually been injured/killed by an incident that a helmet could have helped prevent.
I always wear a helmet, partners, much better than me and climbed much longer, take helmets to the crag and never wear them.
But without accurate Statistics, one cannot make a logical decision other than not to go climbing in the first place.

For certain situations and conditions.  But they are not magic, do have limitations, and will not protect you in any and all situations.  The design and testing spec of helmets can easily be exceeded.  Risk management is multi faceted and PPE is bottom of the pile.

Can't you just use your own judgement? You've surely been to enough crags, cliffs, frozen waterfalls to see and hear stuff falling off, some near,  some far to see how this works.

Toby makes a good point.. go for a day ice climbing, and not wearing a helmet soon seems a poor choice.  

I've also seen plenty of stuff come down at Millstone, so not all grit crags are risk free from falling objects.  A nice 'half brick' around Bond street comes to mind

Have any other Ecrin Roc users discovered that bumble bee's seem to have a  fondness for trying to get into the ventilation holes? I guess it's the perfect burrow-sized hole for a bumble. Or maybe they have deemed it a safe home and are at ease with the marble size of falling stone that can get through them anyway

I work in live events, so lots of very temporary installations and lots of working at height. My issue is that I've had more than a couple of near-misses that have directly been caused by blanket PPE rules. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only non-electrical near-misses I've ever had in my career have been the result of being forced to wear PPE in inappropriate circumstances. Does one think that a high vis is particularly useful at the top of a ladder? Can one imagine it might be hazardous if the arm hole gets snagged on the top of the ladder as one starts descending?

That's not a hypothetical question; I nearly launched myself backwards off an A-frame ladder in exactly those circumstances once. Was anyone's safety (let alone my own) increased by me wearing fluorescent clothing at the top of my ladder? No, of course not. Did I almost put myself in hospital as a result of wearing it? Yes, I very nearly did. Did Mr. H&S Officer give me a thorough bollocking for not wearing high vis within five minutes of this incident? Yes, yes they did.

I have no time for blanket rules - they're stupid and they lead to people not actually thinking through the actual hazards and risks of what they're doing. The three aforementioned incidents are not apocryphal - they happened to me within the last two years, and they're all as a result of someone sat in an office making what sounds like a sensible blanket rule ('high vis on site at all times', 'helmets at height at all times') that introduces less obvious hazards (becoming snagged at height and falling, not being able to see at height and falling).

</pet-hate>

The closest I'll ever get to a blanket PPE rule is 'wear your helmet at the bottom of the crag'. But that's only because the risk is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't really warrant further consideration. The inconvenience is zero (and if it's non-zero, go and buy a helmet that fits comfortably), the hazard is reasonable and the additional hazards introduced by wearing the helmet are zero. Easy.

Hmmm  .... we have to be careful of using personal experiences as proof. It's probably not a big enough data set to be statistically significant.

We had a dog once which got hit by a green car, and was terrified of green cars ever after. Equally stupid around all other cars, of course

Funny how people describing the reasons why they wear helmets suddenly becomes interpreted as 'forcing others' . Forced by what; the logic of their argument?

Its not the hi viz that's to blame in your ladder incident, but incorrect choice of PPE.

Try wearing hi viz clothing instead of vests, or you can get vests with poppers down the side which are designed to 'rip' in the event that they become entangled. 

Work situations are governed by statutory obligations.  H&S is needed because employers, rightly, have a duty of care and it follows that blanket rules are needed so that workers don't make it up for themselves (which is what used to happen).  Those rules should be based on proper risk assessments, but if those aren't done properly or thoroughly they can result in daft rules or even create new hazards.  Really your near-miss should have resulted in the risk assessment for that activity being reviewed.  

Climbing is of course different.  We are responsible for carrying out our own risk assessments, and we alone carry the consequences. However I wonder how many of us carry out proper, considered risk assessments when climbing?  How many of those who choose not to wear helmets do so because they have balanced the likelihood of being hit by a falling object, or striking their head in a fall, and the consequences of any possible injury?  Probably not those described picnicking under crags. Very possibly not many of those who habitually climb without one.  Even if they do, how many of us know enough about head trauma to understand the implications of a potential injury and make an informed judgement about the consequences?

I'm a habitual helmet wearer.  I admit I also haven't carried out a proper risk assessment, and I may wear it in situations where it probably seems unnecessary, but I prefer to err on the side of caution.  They can sometimes be inconvenient, but the actual risks from wearing them seem small - it may be theoretically possible that the straps might get caught in a fall and choke me, but it seems more likely that in most circumstances it will provide me with some protection which may prevent or at least reduce serious injury.

If you climb for long enough and haven't had a near-miss or even been struck by a falling object, you almost certainly will.  The last time it happened to me was sport-climbing in Kalymnos when I was struck on the shoulder by a small rock. It stung a bit, but I was uninjured.  Had it hit my head, my helmet would probably have protected me.  Bare-headed, I would at the very least have suffered a wound which would probably have resulted in a lot of bleeding, which might have compromised my ability to belay, and would probably have ended my climbing for that day while I sought treatment.  Something a bit larger could well have resulted in serious, possibly life-changing, injury.

Okay, I am going to be a bit of a dick now - Its not personal, I just don't like people with negative attitudes towards safety, I am more than happy to debate it.  Health and safety is a two way street, it should not be a dictatorship.  It is there to ensure we all go home safe to our families and loved ones every night. 

I assume you are working in a busy environment where vehicles / things are being moved, so clearly a high viz is essential when on the ground.  I believe it is a dangerous practice to stand at the bottom of the ladder (we should not really be using ladders anyway, but that's something else) take your high viz off for the works, then come down and put it back on - what happens if you forget to put it back on? If it gets moved accidentally or on purpose? etc etc. By keeping it on you are reducing the chance of an unsafe action.  There is also then no argument of "I was just putting it on Guv..."

If your high viz is getting snagged then you are wearing the wrong high viz.  PPE needs to be suitable for the task in hand.  You need to consider what other options you could wear - a polo shirt with long sleeves and elasticated cuffs for example?

Your employer also has a duty of care to you to provide you with the relevant safety equipment and the training on how to use it, for my work I am required to wear long sleeve high viz which does not have any snag points which could get caught in rotating machinery (I work around drill rigs)- I personally wear a long sleeve polo shirt with elasticated cuffs tucked into my trousers.  Others wear overalls / boiler suits with a zip front which is covered.

I think you should be approaching your employer, stating that the supplied PPE is not suitable for the task in hand and either provide a solution or work alongside them to find a solution.  Remembering PPE is the last line of deference so you could either request different PPE or a better still different system of work - i.e. establishing a safe working area marked out by barriers that you can take your high viz off in to do that specific task, this would be written into the RAMS. 

An example of mine - 

Because of what I do I am required to wear safety glasses, there is a small risk of flying debris from the drill rig (stone chips etc).  But in the rain and when the drill rig is throwing up mud it can become very difficult to see. 

So rather than just taking our safety glasses off, and rather than just complaining that we cant see through the glasses operating heavy machinery.  We instead took a dynamic approach.

We thought about our options and the risks.  One option would be that we could stop works entirely and wait for the rain to stop, but that would still not stop the mud from the ground and so is not a practical solution.  We worked though various options until we were happy. 

We then presented this to the H&S bods in the office and said that we will take our glasses off when it rains to reduce the risk of injury from not being able to see, this will be logged on our daily drillers records and the site manager informed beforehand in case anybody wishes to question us. 

To then reduce the risk of the flying debris the rig will be stopped before anybody goes within working distance of the rig (it is normally left running).  After this system was adopted by other crews our H&S team suggested using plastic screens around drill rig tooling to protect us from debris if glasses are not worn - a good idea, we didn't think of.

Does it take longer? Yes. Is it more of an inconvenience? Yes. Does it ensure that we are working in a safe environment and that we all go home every night? Yes. 

Sorry its a bit of a rant, but I absolutely detest people (and I don't mean you, I mean your company and there policy's) who think H&S should be dictated.  The biggest expert in your job on site is you.  A good H&S team should listen to its employees and there specialist fields. 

I think here lies the problem, it is not a judgement but an opinion. I go to crags and my opinion is a Helmet is necessary, but there are often people at the crag, with more experience, whose opinion is, a helmet is not necessary. I see this most frequently at Limestone sport crags, were one is stood amongst a litter of rocks that I assume have fallen from the crag, and not grown there from rock seeds. But how many people do you actually hear of being injured by falling stones at Sports crags.

I would suggest that a judgement can only be based on evidence and data, and that is in short supply in the UK, as far as I aware.

 

Why on Earth does anyone need to wear a high vis anything while at the top of a ladder (edit: or in a fully-rigged and tidied venue with no plant, machinery, vehicles or other hazardous moving things)?

But how many people do you actually hear of being injured by falling stones at Sports crags.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/5951598.popular-teacher-killed-by-frea...

There you go, I climb and have climbed with people in the LMC, who do not wear helmets at Sports Crags. 
I was aware of a tragic death, but know more about it now, than I did before from Climbing Media.

I am my employer - or at least, my clients like to consider me as my employer when it comes to their tax liabilities, but bizarrely they're less pleased when I say "my employer's risk assessment states that I should..." when it's in direct contravention of their own. I am my employer though and I am a legitimate business, and I'll continue having the arguments when they come up because I refuse to delegate my responsibilities to my own safety.

Quite. You've summarised what I'm trying to say pretty accurately and succinctly. Anyone who knows me will be well aware that I'm really quite risk-averse. When something doesn't pass the dynamic risk assessment that's constantly happening in the background, I do something to fix it. If I'm working on stage with riggers overhead in the grid, I put a lid on. If I'm working on site with plant and trucks whizzing around, I put a high vis on. The decision to wear PPE should be a positive one and based on the hazards identified in that present moment though - not a blanket rule that switches people off to assessing the hazards as they go.

Totally agree. Last night, I originally wrote that it is super rare to see stuff falling on "grit", thinking of Stanage or Curbar. But then I thought of the top outs at Millstone covered in rubble that the rope readily moves, so I went back and added "natural" before "grit"!

I had a very similar experience but with a clip stick rather than a helmet, dropped by a climber 25m into dogging a route in Spain. Those things turn into javelins pretty promptly; I’m not entirely sure a helmet would have provided much protection.

To be fair, Harpur Hill isn't typical of most sport crags.  Just the more recently developed quarried ones.  I'm not a natural helmet enthusiast but I'd always wear one at venues like HH.

And recent experience confirms the wisdom of it.  

As you said above, PPE is supposed to be the 'last line of defence'.  It's at the bottom of the so-called 'hierarchy of controls'. 

An effective collective way to control the risks, such as those screens is higher up the list so should really considered preferable.  Eliminating the risk entirely is at the top of the pile, so if simply staying out of the way while the machine is in operation is possible that should be the go-to.  Preferable to the collective measure of the screens, and definitely preferable to the PPE.

So arguably the clever systems you've come up with to make your safety glasses redundant when it's raining are what you should have been doing all along whether it's raining or not - and hey presto the safety glasses are redundant all the time.  You're only supposed to rely on PPE as a control measure when there is no better option, that's what that "last line of defence" thing means - and as it turns out apparently there is.

Do you really mean that?  Because you seem to be unwilling to take tehmarks's word for it that a hi-vis isn't really necessary for that particular job.  And in spite of having no idea what the actual job is you flat out told him that it isn't appropriate to use a ladder.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/april.pdf

Yes, I probably wasn't very clear.  Of course helmets protect from falling items, thats self evident. My point was that all the climbing head injuries that I have seen, and it is more than a few, (I can't count but I've helped scoop up more fallen climbers than I care to remember) have been caused by the head colliding with something, not something colliding with the head.  This leads me to think that the real risks to the head in climbing are not generally fully appreciated, and that this side of the risk factors is almost always  overlooked in discussions like this one, and the only context that seems to feature is the risk of falling objects and the solidity or busy-ness of the crag. 

To quote yourself later on "Do you really mean that?".

PPE is exactly that - the last line of defence. 

The screen is not there to make glasses redundant. That has never been the case.  It is there as an extra line of defence (or really the other way around, the glasses are the extra line of defence now) when operating outside of normal conditions. 

Employers have a duty to provide employees with PPE as required under current legislation, which is deemed necessary to protect against hazards likely to be encountered in the course of their duties, flying debris is likely to be accounted for and so glasses are required.  And as employees we have a duty of care to ensure our own health and safety at work. 

So how do you stay out of the way of the machine entirely?  Surely at some point the machine needs both turning on and off? At that point you are entering the 'danger area'. And what are we classifying as the danger area - 1m? 10m? 100m? The size of the potential projectile will be dependent on the rock you are drilling through.  What about the general public who we have a duty of care to protect, will they be far enough away?

Eliminating all the risks whilst maintaining operational effectiveness with a 40 tonne machine boring a hole through the earth sadly wont happen.  Many risks thankfully have been eliminated over the years- try to find a driller over 60 with all his fingers, there are not many.  And as time progresses and positive H&S developments are made hopefully the industry (and other industries) will become safer. 

Do I find it inconvenient to wear hi-viz overalls, safety glasses, hard hat, ear defenders and god knows what else whilst at work - absolutely not.  Because at the end of it I know that I am taking control of my own safety.  If any of the mechanisms put in place to stop accidents happening fail, or if I do an action that was not thought about in the planning stage I know I am still protected and still going home safe that evening.... and so are the people I work alongside. 

1) I did not 'flat out' state that he should not be using a ladder.  I stated that 'we should not really be using ladders' as there are many far better and safer alternatives to ladders out there which your own H&R regulations will tell you.

2) For that exact job, at that moment, he does not believe he needs a high viz jacket, which may be true.  However other parts of that site are likely to require one - moving vehicles or objects, dark or poorly lit area, for identification purposes, for site security purposes, for fire safety purposes etc etc. 

So there are two approaches to this: 

First Approach - He can put his hi-viz on to walk across the site to his ladder, take it off, put it down, climb the ladder, do his job, climb down the ladder, put the hi-viz back on, walk to the next area, take it off, put it down...........................................................

Second Approach - He could spend (or his employer) £9.91 on fit for purpose Hi-Viz shirt.  Heck, if he send me his address I will even send him one for free. 

I really don't see your argument at all other than a "Fu*k the system".  Some PPE I would happy agree is not needed and only task specific, basic things like some sort of Hi-Viz and toe protection is just common sense. 

Modern climbing helmets are designed to take a side impact so they offer protection in a fall, as well as from falling objects.

I think this is true.  Most climbers don't have sufficient information about climbing accidents or the effects of head trauma to make a properly informed judgement. Instead they fall into heuristic traps based on what they see others doing. 

I skimmed your reply mid-rehearsal and entirely missed the ladder comment, however I can categorically state that in many scenarios in my role, using a ladder is the only practical method of gaining access at all. If you ever walk into the rig of an event, you'll immediately see exactly why that is.

None of those apply. Believe me, I am capable of rationally assessing when I do and don't need to wear a high vis. You're applying a building site visual picture to a completely different environment. Either way it's somewhat missing my original point, which is that the choice to wear PPE should be a positive choice based on an assessment of the hazards and considerations of that specific situation, and not a blanket rule because it's easier or because one doesn't trust that people can assess the hazards around them. As I said, blanket rules switch people off to actually engaging their brain, and if one doesn't trust people to engage their brain or identify the risks of their present situation, then they need training rather than rules. Risk assessments are a continuous process, not a box-ticking or paperwork exercise.

I could just not wear a high vis at all when there's no risk whatsoever of being mown over.

That's a very kind offer, however the high vis I have serves me perfectly well for the times I need to wear one (on the ground around trucks or technicians in MEWPs), and I really don't think that my clients will appreciate me being high vis by default. And I don't really want to get half-naked whenever I do need to transition from being invisible to being visible.

The argument is 'wear PPE when required by the present situation. I don't work on a building site, and a high vis is absolutely not required for my job other than in very specific moments. It's definitely not required in a fully-rigged and empty indoor venue at the top of a ladder where the only thing happening is me lining-up a projector, no matter what 'Mr. H&S' believes. My original point was that by forcing a blanket rule of certain PPE in all situations, you can easily introduce novel hazards that may not be obvious to the office-based person making what they think are sensible rules. Don't make blanket rules - assess the hazards that are actually around you and act accordingly. Simples.

I'm really sorry for diverting this thread away from climbing - my point as it pertains to climbing is that one shouldn't switch off to the dangers around them - but helmets at the crag is the closest I'll ever get to having a blanket rule for doing something, because there is absolutely no disadvantage to putting it on.

I disagree, accurate statistic might allow us to make better informed decisions but you can still make a logical decision without them:

1. Are there scenarios where wearing a helmet will reduce risk/injury.
2. Are there scenarios where wearing a helmet will increase risk/injury.

You could make a decision right there - here's the bit where some stats might help:

• Do the stats allow one to determine the likelihoods of 1 & 2 above?
• If so, is the difference between 1 & 2 above "worth" more or less than the increase in hassle/discomfort/whatever from wearing a helmet.

Having said all that, I generally don't wear a helmet when bouldering or soloing on grit, probably because it's a bit of hassle and adds to the stuff I need to carry to the crag (volume not weight) - maybe time to revisit that.

And on another area of this discussion I have been hit on the head by a falling stone knocked off by unseen climbers well above the bottom of the crag - I'd just taken my helmet off - doh! - luckily just blood and 3 stitches but it was a bit of a lesson about helmet wearing at the bottom of big crags.

I hope they are designed to do so but AFAIK side impact isn't specifically mentioned (just looked briefly at Petzel website discussing EN standard helmet requirements). I've got a BD Half Dome which has quite a bit of lateral  flexibility and the BD website doesn't seem to make any claims about side protection. 

Well bikers are forced in this country - yet to be convinced but I wear one certainly where any chance of running into police as it’s not worth the hassle. If I was riding in USA or other places that have a bit more keenness on individual freedom and less on health and safety then sometimes I wouldn’t bother.

climbers are not currently. What I called out was judging others for having a different opinions - a step below forcing to begin with  but at the end of the day it’s up to a climber to decide on that route, on that day, and in those conditions what makes sense to them. It’s never going to be risk free no matter what so go with what you feel is right for you.

The Petzl Meteor certainly gives side or at least back of the head protection. I found out the hard way last winter, the helmet cracked but not my head. I was glad I was wearing it.

Yes.  I mean obviously a part of me is just yanking your chain for fun, because your reply to tehmarks above was so sanctimonious.  But I really do. 

If there are other measures, further up the so-called 'hierarchy of controls' than PPE that can reasonably practicably be put into place then arguably you have a duty to put those measures in place all the time.  Not just when the rain makes your PPE a bit less convenient that it otherwise would be.

That is literally what that thing about PPE being the 'last line of defence' means.  You're not supposed to rely on it unless there is nothing else that can practically be done.  But you've outlined two such measures yourself - stop the machine when someone needs to approach it and put screens around it to stop any debris from flying off and hitting people.

You're the one arguing that it shouldn't matter that it's inconvenient, not me.  Because danger never sleeps, was it?

I have absolutely no idea, of course.  Those are all questions that you presumably answered to your own satisfaction when you came up with your scheme to allow you to take the safety glasses off when it's raining.

Whaaat!?  Yes, of course they will if you're doing it right.  That is at the very top of the hierarchy of controls - you eliminate the risk to people who don't need to be in the 'danger area' completely by making sure they are not there.

Or do you just let random members of the public who have absolutely no need to be there wander into the 'danger area' so long as they're wearing safety glasses?

See, this is a thing that can happen when you fetishise the PPE. 
Here's an example that I hear quite often:
"Sorry mate, you can't go through there just now, there's work taking place above that area and a risk of falling objects."
"It's ok, I've got my hard hat on."

No, it's not ok because you have your hard hat on - that is the last resort to protect anyone who absolutely needs to be there.  But it's a far, far less effective measure than going round the other way and not being there in the first place if you don't have to be. 

And dragging this back on topic to helmets for climbers, the same thing applies!  If there's a risk of stonefall, wearing a helmet is what you do to protect yourself after you've decided that accepting the risks of being there in the first place is a necessary part of your day. 

Sitting right at the foot of a climb in some chossy quarry eating your lunch with helmets on is almost as daft as sitting there without, if you could just move out of the firing line and eat your sandwiches somewhere else instead.

Er..  you've lost me a bit there, I don't see how those two things are not the same.

Anyway, here's the link again - it's an article published on their own website in which the HSE themselves describe the idea that ladders should never be used   as a "Great Health And Safety Myth":
https://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/april.pdf

It's pretty much the direct opposite to that, if the system in question is the 'hierarchy of controls', I'm all for it.

I think there's the germ of a relevant point in my protracted ramble above about the 'hierarchy of controls'.  It's probably quite instinctive for mountaineers and winter climbers that you don't hang about in areas where there's a risk of stonefall, avalanche etc. 

But I wonder if it's quite as clear to climbers who are less familiar with the whole concept of objective dangers that wearing a helmet is good, but being out of the firing line is much better.  So instead of putting on a helmet to gear up under the crag for example, perhaps think about gearing up not directly under the crag.

A helmet does nothing to prevent a rock from landing on your head after all, though if you're lucky it might transform a life-changing brain injury into a minor concussion.  I think there's a bit of a tendency in some quarters to think wearing a helmet is a magic talisman that wards off any chance of injuries - not only is that not the case, wearing a helmet doesn't even guarantee that you won't get a head injury necessarily, it just dials down the severity a notch or two most of the time.

Some are and some aren't I think.  The EN standard for helmets still doesn't mention side impact (or impacts generally that are to do with hitting the rock with your head, as opposed to a rock hitting your head if you see what I mean).  A future revision might well do, but the wheels turn slowly.

Besides manufacturers becoming more aware of the issue, better side/back/front impact protection also comes naturally with the move towards foam helmets from the more traditional shell & cradle style* - even where thats an innovation driven by other aims, such as making the helmet lighter and more comfortable.

*Back in the day when the Petzl Meteor was one of the first 'foam' helmets, the more traditional Petzl helmet would have been the Ecrin Roc - excellent protection from pebbles bouncing off your bonce, next to useless for a back/side/front impact from swinging into the rock in a fall.

There was an article on here about it a few years back I think, I'll have a quick look and see if I can find a link.

E2A:  This is it.  (Crikey - this article is 14 years old!  Still relevant though.)
https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/helmets/helmets_-_everything_you_n...

There's always a risk of stonefall at a crag, whether caused by climbers, birds and animals, or natural erosion. Gear can dropped, or even something deliberately thrown 

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2022/05/01/peak-district-rescuers-condemn...

At some places the risk may be less than others, but it's never zero. That's without the possibility of hitting your head in a fall. It's a risk you accept by putting yourself in that situation, but that risk can be mitigated (although not entirely eliminated) by wearing a helmet.

The question then is, what are the reasons for not wearing a helmet?  When helmets fell out of fashion there was some justification for the argument that they were heavy and cumbersome and could be a hindrance on hard routes, although it's hard to avoid the suspicion that it was because they didn't look cool paired with multicoloured tights.  Modern helmets are light and comfortable, so those arguments no longer carry much weight. 

Of course it is the individual's choice. If someone finds a helmet uncomfortable or simply prefers the sense of freedom, and is willing to accept the greater risk of permanent brain damage, that is for them to decide (although many climbers seem willing to accept the extraordinary discomfort of wearing tight rock shoes, so why not the minor discomfort of a helmet?). However I do question their judgement, and I do wonder whether their decision has been reached after balancing all the considerations or whether they are simply copying what they see around them.

One can minimise the risk though by not putting oneself in places where stonefall is more likely when one doesn't need to be there. As deepsoup says, don't sit under the crag whether you're wearing a helmet or not; it's a far better solution than putting your lid on and having a picnic at the foot of the crag.

Of course, there are degrees of hazard. I definitely wouldn't get my picnic blanket out at the foot of Tintern Quarry, but I might care a bit less if I were sat at Newstones on my own with the crag to myself.

I once stopped halfway up a crag, had a sandwich then carried on. Without a helmet. While soloing.

I'm a terrible, terrible person.

Thanks including for the link. Although very relevant its a bit surprising if those standards have remained the same for 14+ years. Reading it my interpretation is that there tests recommended for side impact from an object (which I imagine bears at least some similarity to lateral protection in a fall) but that helmets may not have to pass them to achieve EN or UIAA standard. In the Petzyl article( https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/helmets/choosing_a_petzl_helmet-11... ) Petzyl gives a list of the safety properties of various helmets (though not saying how well a test was passed....some implication if cross referenced with their list of helmet types vs properties, which itself is an arbitrary appearing star rating). Possibly  weight , durability and appearance are the major influences on helmet choice and many just assume that any climbing helmet will give adequate protection.

Speaking for myself I'm a confirmed helmet wearer including for exposed walking/scrambling. I think someone from Mountain Rescue said it would prevent a lot of injuries if all hillwalkers wore helmets (can't remember exact details). I'm certainly not in favour of climbing helmet use being at all compulsory, though people should consider the effect on others eg relatives, NHS, social services of a bad head injury. Relating to the OP's question I'm irrational in not wearing a helmet on Southern sandstone though a member of my club did get a head injury falling in a descent gully at Harrison's IIRC, and also in agreeing with compulsory helmets for motorcyclist (but not pedal cyclists).

Jeez, still at it?  No wonder H&S policies are so complicated.

Me too.  And it was raining.

Interesting. From my personal experience (not that it proves anything either), climbers are generally very aware of the range of hazards from which a helmet can provide protection, including protecting the head in a fall, but on balance would regard protection from falling rock as the primary reason for wearing a helmet. I would tend to agree with that assessment: unlike you, I haven't had to deal with numerous head injuries (in fact, hardly any), but I have dealt with a handful of minor injuries from falling rock, and seen many hundreds of "near misses". For what it's worth, I haven't actually seen a single head injury resulting from a leader fall (although I know they do happen, of course).

Of course, but that's true everywhere not just at the crag.  Even indoors - kitchen cupboard doors can be particularly hazardous and a tin of beans could come off a high shelf at the supermarket, so you might as well wear your helmet 24/7.

But you don't, right?  I'm guessing here, and also guessing that the reason why not is probably quite similar to the reason some people choose not to wear one at the crag. 

At some crags that's a more unwise decision than it is at others, and I think you could argue that it's also quite a selfish decision sometimes, but nevertheless I think I would contend that it's always that person's decision to make.

No judgement here.  I've done even worse - soloed a route specifically so I could stop and eat my lunch on a ledge part way up, just for the hell of it.

I don't know for sure that they haven't changed at all over the last few years, it's been a while since I've seen them.  (And it's a bit annoying that those standards aren't in the public domain really, you'd think it would be in everyone's best interests if anyone could read one and see the detail at any time.)

I thought dogs were colourblind?

I thought someone would point that out  

Maybe they're not completely colourblind, just weaker in that department? Or maybe all the Ford Cortinas in Falmouth in the 1990s happened to be green, and our dog was afraid of Cortinas?

Granted.  However banging your head on a kitchen cupboard may be painful but is unlikely to result in serious injury.  It's unlikely a tin of beans will simply come off a high shelf at the supermarket, but again if it did it's unlikely to result in serious injury.  However if something with the mass of a tin of beans were to fall from the height of even a fairly modest crag then you might be looking at a fractured skull or worse.

It may be fairly uncommon for someone to be struck on the head when climbing, but we've all witnessed stonefall or seen items dropped.  The head is a small target so in most cases it will be missed, but it only has to happen once, and it could be life-changing.

Absolutely, no question.  However I do wonder how often that decision is a conscious one based on a careful analysis of all the factors, and how often it's out of habit or copying others around you (I admit my own helmet-wearing is largely habitual, but I don't see a downside to wearing one).  I've not gone back through the thread to check, but I don't recall anyone putting forward a reasoned argument not to wear a helmet, apart from the personal choice one.

I bought a helmet last year but haven't been out climbing since I got it. It's had one airing though - during a wander up to Cwm Idwal when it was blowing a howler of a westerly (I forget the name of the storm) and I was *convinced* that a big, flat rock was going to come flying off the tops and thwack me on the swede good and proper.

Haha!

I agree, when we buy helmets etc we often don't know what we can legitimately expect of them. British Standards cost to download but I think there are quite a few libraries inc at universities where there is "free" digital access (though paid for by the institution) if one can be bothered.  AFAIK nothing like that for EN standards except I've googled https://www.freestandardsdownload.com/ but wonder if there's a catch. There was a thread where tihs was discussed some time back but the point was made that the standards all cost to make and keep running and we shouldn't expect them for nothing.

There's a summary of EN 12492 here:

https://www.satra.com/ppe/EN12492.php

It's only a precis and doesn't go into a lot of technical detail, but it is clear that mountaineering helmets are expected to withstand side impacts as well as a falling mass, and must be tested accordingly.

Only down to 60 degrees (30° off the horizontal), and it's a much less demanding test than it is for a vertical impact to the top of the helmet.  ie: A flat instead of a hemispherical striker, dropped from 0.5m instead of 2m. (From your link.)

Old-school shell and cradle helmets like the Ecrin Roc pass that test despite offering little protection from the kind of 'side impact' you might experience as a result of swinging into the rock or decking out in a fall, which is very likely to come from further down towards the side, front or back.

In a post above (10:50 Weds), oldie included a link to this Petzl advert on here about their "Top and Side" label:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/helmets/choosing_a_petzl_helmet-11...

Here's Petzl's own explanation of what that means:  https://www.petzl.com/GB/en/Sport/video/What-is-TOP-and-SIDE-PROTECTION-on-...
(The commentary on the video is in French, but even if your French is as poor as mine I think it's pretty easy to get the gist.)

Essentially what they're doing there is applying their own in-house standard, which is supplementary to EN12492.  And it seems that they're doing that by taking the same test that the standard mandates at 60° from the top and bringing it all the way down to the horizontal plane around the front, sides and back of the helmet.

They do that specifically because the EN standard does not require the side-impact protection that they want to be able to tell their customers the current line of Petzl climbing helmets offer.

There's been some talk about how often people get hurt by falling stones vs. banging their head on rock / the ground. I'm not sure if the data needed to answer that has been captured. I've seen none of the former and one of the latter. I mostly climb in areas where crags are short and not particularly loose (single pitch grit). The person in question had taken a ground fall and was knocked out by what looked like (and hopefully was) a minor head injury. He came round after 5 mins and my group hung around to help the mountain rescue team get him to the road. I can't say for certain obviously, but his helmet may have saved his life.

In my job, we learn that PPE is the last line of measures to be taken. Before putting on PPE we think about whether we can eliminate or reduce the risk. Obviously in climbing we can't eliminate the risk (that would be the equivalent of walking up the descent route), but reducing the risk is definitely possible - e.g. placing gear well, backing up gear, dropping several grades if soloing, backing off if you're not happy. It's all part and parcel of the management of risk which is one of the great aspects of climbing, and that's why wearing a helmet is always a personal choice. However, the one thing you can't reduce is the chance of a random stone landing on your head.

Sadly as happened earlier this year you also have idiots - I'm sure this guy was very pleased of their decision to wear a helmet on a single pitch grit crag.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/cruel-gang-throw-boulders-pe...

That's a crappy thing to happen. Bamford Edge is a bit of an idiot hotspot at the moment.

Presumably because the forces in a side impact arising from striking the rock in a fall are expected to be both less than and also different in nature from a rock falling hundreds of feet from the top of a crag.

I have no technical knowledge and I'm not in a position to discuss whether the standards are adequate or the tests are well designed, but it does nevertheless indicate that modern climbing helmets are designed to take a side impact, which I think had been questioned.

But you are discussing it.  If you have no technical knowledge perhaps you should stop.

It isn't a question of the tests in the standard not being adequate or well designed, it is simply that this isn't what the standard was designed for.  It was originally intended to apply to mountaineering helmets for mountaineers, which is close to but not quite exactly what modern climbing helmets are used for quite a lot of the time.

Did you look at the Petzl link I posted? 
Here it is again: https://www.petzl.com/GB/en/Sport/video/What-is-TOP-and-SIDE-PROTECTION-on-...

As Petzl explain there, it's precisely because the tests mandated by EN12492 do not demonstrate that a helmet offers a meaningful degree of side-impact protection that they have decided to supplement that standard with further tests of their own in order to demonstrate to customers that their current range of recreational climbing helmets are indeed designed to deal with a side-impact.

No doubt you're quite correct that this is the case for most modern climbing helmets, but not all of them.

This 14 year old article I linked to above is still relevant:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/helmets/helmets_-_everything_you_n...

The Ecrin Roc has been discontinued now and in general the move away from shell/cradle designs has continued, not only because they tend to offer better side-impact protection but also because they are often lighter and more comfortable.

Shell/cradle designs are still produced though and even Petzl still make the Vertex Vent, which is the successor to the Ecrin Roc but now marketed solely as an industrial helmet.

Even today one of those designs might very well be an excellent choice for, say, winter climbing where the risk of falling ice and debris is high and you're pretty determined to avoid falling off at all costs.  They have their advantages, mainly that they're more robust.

In other kinds of climbing where the risk of falling stuff is less and falling off is more acceptable, single-pitch gritstone for example, a front, rear or side impact is a much greater part of the overall risk of head injury.  Consequently something like a Sirocco would undoubtedly be much more effective than a shell/cradle design.

Yip. I'll admit to being a helmet totalitarian, especially when it comes to cycling but Christ this thread. 

Bit o' Fred Dibnah as an antidote feels necessary....

youtube.com/watch?v=F04dGK1_wYA&

Same here wrt PPE, work etc.

My point relates to your final statement, the probability of being hit on the head by a falling object is inversely proportional to height.

If there is only 1 helmet in the team, best to give it to the be layer, an unconscious belay is of no use. This principle is particularly relevant in the bolted grotty quarries which attract all the cool kids. 

I know the plural of anecdote isn't data but there's been a couple of reports of climbers being hit on their head by falling rocks this year at South Wales sport crags. One appears to have been quite a sizeable chunk and he got away with a bit of neck pain only as he had a helmet on. 

I was once saved by the buckle on my helmet when a hold exploded off in my hand at unexpectedly horseshoe. I took a swinging fall into an arete. The buckle softened the blow to my jaw from a protruding spike and spread the force out so I got off without a scratch. 

I pretty much wear a helmet when doing any kind of scrambling/climbing these days.  I think there is a massive culture thing in mountaineering in general whereby the culture is to only wear a helmet on climbs or when you are roped, however there are numberous times when on steep scree, or where on steep descents or in winter when a slip and a bang of the head could potentially be life changing and a helmet would prevent it.

I descended Bristly Ridge a few weeks ago and the gully at the bottom which is steep, very well travelled and very loose (Sinister Gully) has the vast majority of people who come up it with no helmet on when the chances of actually being hit by debris is fairly high.  I think this is because a helmet is essentially seen as climbing kit and the vast majority of people do this route unroped in summer and don't own any climbing kit which includes a helmet, yet logic dictates a helmet here is common sense and could save your life.

The standards are available for anyone to read, it's part of the BSI charter. But they are charged for, BSI has to receive income to do their work and the users of each standard have to contribute to the cost (ours are actually dirt cheap, the nuclear power station ones are reportedly a bit pricier!).

BSI isn't a government agency, it's a non-profit institution set up by and for industry. In fact the government also has to pay to access the standards, the UK government contribution to the BSI finances are actually minimal and for specific work to help policy decisions and for 2019 was £2.48m compared with an income of nearly £600m and a tax bill of €24m.

Realistically unless you are an expert in the relevant field the standards are of little real use, have you read the rope standard recently? They need qualified explanation to be meaningful to the average climber because one needs to know why they are set where they are.

The minute detail buried in the small print perhaps.  But you don't need a huge amount of technical knowledge to at least gain a bit of insight into what the CE mark on your kit actually means from the broad outlines of what's required to meet the standard (and what isn't).

As the above demonstrates I think - the detail of the tests mandated by EN12492 are useful for an ordinary punter like me thinking about buying a new lid and wanting a slightly deeper understanding of what I can assume from the CE mark alone that it'll protect me from, and what I can't. 

Petzl clearly think so too, because they've taken the time to explain it to their customers and how they've chosen to supplement the standard with some further tests of their own for some of their helmets.

https://www.standardsuk.com/products/BS-EN-12492-2012

Dirt cheap.  Righto.

Except of course that it is possible as a punter to find that information for free, most of the time, eventually.  So it's not as if making at least a summary of the key facts more readily accessible to the general public would make that much difference to the BSI's income.  I was never going to pay £170 to get a look at the most relevant couple of pages of a 38 page pdf - but probably would have coughed up if it genuinely was "dirt cheap".

It will partially protect you from something, exactly what size of rock that's fallen 400m is something I doubt you could clarify if you read the standard because that's not how it's worked out. After all there are plenty of other helmets offering vastly higher protection from both falling objects and impacts from the side which climbers could wear if they wanted to.

When it comes to paying it's simple, either one accepts the decision of the experts who made the standard in which case it isn't nescessary to have read it or you pay to disagree. The standard was created to protect climbers from sub-standard products, not climbers from falling rocks.