An Invitation to Help Make the World a Better Place

There’s no denying it—over-regulation can be a nightmare. Sometimes, it feels like the more rules we have, the harder it is to actually do the job. And when it comes to fall protection and rescue safety, not every situation can be solved by a simple regulation or blanket rule.
As experienced safety and rescue professionals, we know that each worksite, each rescue, and each worker is different. When real-world scenarios and physics fail to read the books that the standards-writers used, we have to use our best judgment to make sure everyone stays safe.
Safety is about more than just wearing the right gear and checking the ropes. It’s about experience, knowing what works, and using that knowledge to keep people safe. But where should we draw the line? How far should standards go?

A Seat at the Table—Before Someone Who Actually Likes Standards Takes It

I’ll be honest, I wasn’t thrilled when my boss, Steve Hudson, first asked me to get involved in standards development. I had a lot of thoughts, none of which were particularly positive about spending hours in meetings discussing regulations. But I’ll never forget what he said:

“This is an opportunity. If you don’t step up, someone else will—and they might actually like standards.”

At the time, I couldn’t help but wonder, who likes standards? But looking back, I realize he had a point. Standards are essential—they provide a baseline for safety and ensure that everyone is on the same page. However, at the other end of the spectrum are those who use the regulatory process to redirect the industry toward their biases or preferences.
Somewhere between the lowest common denominator and the self-righteous dominator is a balance that promotes safety without stifling the flexibility we need in real-world situations.

A World Without Standards

Have you ever considered what our world might be like if stop signs didn’t mean STOP? Or if electrical outlets were all wired to deliver an arbitrary output? Or how big a “cup” of sugar should be?
When I first began participating in NFPA 1983 a few decades ago, there was a specific requirement for how strong a rope should be. However, there were big gaps in defining test methods, sample lengths, terminations, and interpretation of results.
Under this scenario, manufacturers could publish test results in wildly different ways, leading to confusion and inconsistency in safety ratings. This lack of standardization was one of the reasons I reluctantly conceded that standards do have a place in safety equipment.

How Far is Too Far?

The first edition of NFPA 1983 in the late 1980s was five pages long. Today, NFPA 1983 is part of the 245-page NFPA 2500 Standard. Have we improved industry safety with these additional pages, or have we just made equipment more expensive and complex?
Some questionable requirements include:
– “Life Safety Rope shall be constructed of virgin fiber.” European EN standards allow recycled fiber—why doesn’t NFPA?
– “All load-bearing buckles must be proof-loaded to 11kN.” Does this genuinely improve safety, or just increase costs?
– “Soft goods must be retired no more than ten years from manufacture.” Shouldn’t storage conditions and actual use be considered?
While quality is imperative, we must ask: Who is really benefiting from these increasingly complex standards?

“Consensus Means Everyone’s a Little Bit Unhappy”

When he was teaching me the ropes of standards development, Steve used to like to say:

“The true definition of consensus is that everyone is a little bit unhappy!”

At first, I thought that sounded like a terrible motto. But after being part of a few discussions, I saw the wisdom in it. There’s no perfect solution for everyone. It’s about finding the best compromise that ensures safety without over-regulation.
That’s why having experienced technicians at the table is crucial. Field technicians know what’s practical, what’s not, and what’s downright dangerous. Engineering, manufacturing, training, and testing professionals are essential, but so are those who work with the equipment daily.
Without this balance, we risk creating impractical standards that don’t work in real-world applications.

Why You Should Get Involved

If you don’t get involved in standards development, someone else will. And if you’re not there to advocate for practical solutions, we could end up with standards that make your job harder, not necessarily safer.
Yes, attending meetings and discussing regulations might sound dull. But being part of the process ensures that standards make sense for the people who rely on them daily. If we don’t take that opportunity, we’re leaving it to someone else—someone who may have an entirely different agenda.
Remember: “True consensus means everyone is a little bit unhappy.”
And that’s okay. Because in the end, it’s about ensuring that safety doesn’t take a backseat to bureaucracy.

Get Involved: Standards That Matter

If this has piqued your interest, here are some key standards in our industry you might want to consider contributing to:

If you’re in this industry, your experience matters. Join the discussion and help shape the standards that affect our work every day.