Paper boys and girls and lights on their bikes

[kwackers]

If a building site manager allowed workers to work without scaffold or trench supports when they needed it, and someone died, they would rightly have the book thrown at them, and "I just asked them to build a wall, how they do it is up to them" would be no defence.

Just how much would a set of lights and a hi vis vest cost the newsagent to provide, £15 plus a bit of effort to check they were using them.

Surely looking after children is what nannies are for.

I think you're stretching the comparison more than a little... Paper rounds are not building sites and delivering papers is not the dangerous activity you might think from reading this thread.

How about this? Since presumably the parents bought the bikes they are responsible both for their legality and use.

I noticed the local paper boy that does our road is carted round and helped by his parents in their car. Would you suggest the lads employer has responsibility for the car?

Where bicycles are provided then I think the employer has responsibility.

Where a round could only reasonably be done on a bicycle then the employer should stress that the bicycle must meet legal requirements - within reason (you can't expect him to check every nut and bolt on a child's bike before they go out).

Where the round can be done on foot then I'd say responsibility lies with the child and it's parents.

[UrbanManc]

If a building site manager allowed workers to work without scaffold or trench supports when they needed it, and someone died, they would rightly have the book thrown at them, and "I just asked them to build a wall, how they do it is up to them" would be no defence.

Just how much would a set of lights and a hi vis vest cost the newsagent to provide, £15 plus a bit of effort to check they were using them.

Surely looking after children is what nannies are for.

I think you're stretching the comparison more than a little... Paper rounds are not building sites.

.

Paper rounds are 'places of work' , sorry Kwackers , you can't get out of this one.

Newsagents provide the work, it's their responsibility to provide whatever safety equipment necessary for that job to be done safely.

[EFMax]

So, because drivers are useless I have to wear fluorescent clothing and use lights 24/7?

Use your common sense and decide for yourself.. 1st time you get knocked into a ditch with some prat who claims not to have seen you (if they stop) may encourage you to try and help yourself in the future by reducing other peoples excuse.. I know for a fact that you will not miss me or pretend that you did not see me cos I stand out even if I look daft doing so.. most drivers are easily distracted and that is when they actually have their eyes on the road..

Reading your post I've a better idea. Why not simply remove those 85% of drivers from the road? That way everyone is safer.

I would back that one tomorrow.. most drivers have not got a clue about driving as most drivers in the UK are taught how to pass their test, not taught how to drive... big difference.

[UrbanManc]

So, because drivers are useless I have to wear fluorescent clothing and use lights 24/7?

Use your common sense and decide for yourself.. 1st time you get knocked into a ditch with some prat who claims not to have seen you (if they stop) may encourage you to try and help yourself in the future by reducing other peoples excuse.. I know for a fact that you will not miss me or pretend that you did not see me cos I stand out even if I look daft doing so.. most drivers are easily distracted and that is when they actually have their eyes on the road..

Reading your post I've a better idea. Why not simply remove those 85% of drivers from the road? That way everyone is safer.

I would back that one tomorrow.. most drivers have not got a clue about driving as most drivers in the UK are taught how to pass their test, not taught how to drive... big difference.

Drivers that don't look ... don't notice anything, even if you are wearing the wattage output of the Blackpool illuminations.

I have a £200 front light that illuminates the entire road .. both sides, I still get idiots pulling out on me from side roads.

The priority is to remove the problem not mask it with HI-VIZ, that means returning the thousands of traffic police that have been taken from our streets and taking out the 1,500,000 cars that are on our roads without insurance.

It's not down to cyclists to compensate for the failings in the system, having said that I do wear hi-viz all the time , it just makes suing the s*** out of drivers a little easier.

[graymee]

I'm undecided on whether a newsagent should have to ensure his paper boys/girls method of transport is correctly lit. I would image under current H & S legislation that he could be found negligent if he didn’t.

What seems to be getting missed is that the parents have the ultimate Duty of Care to ensure their offspring are safe. Why aren’t the parents checking that their kids have working lights and their bikes are in safe working order? I’m sure that if their child was injured they’d be up in arms.

It would be an interesting court case if a driver driving inside the law (correctly lit, within the speed limit etc) injured someone through no fault of their own and their insurance company refused to pay anything to the cyclist because they did not have lights and the driver didn’t see them. I don’t agree with the way this country as gone with respect to suing for any little trivial thing however, perhaps in a situation like this the driver could sue the cyclist/parents?

Common sense suggests that you take all practical measures to ensure your own safety unfortunately common sense isn’t that common. Almost every day I see several people of all ages riding without lights in dark clothes making them virtually impossible to see until the last minute.

[kwackers]

Paper rounds are 'places of work' , sorry Kwackers , you can't get out of this one.

Newsagents provide the work, it's their responsibility to provide whatever safety equipment necessary for that job to be done safely.

I just don't go for it - not in a general sense anyway.

If I have a job delivering news papers that doesn't need a bicycle and you decide to do it on your bike then as far as I'm concerned it's up to you to make sure your bike is up to the job.

What about jobs that require people to have their own transport? Does the employer suddenly have a legal requirement to make sure the car is legal? Somehow I doubt it.

At the end of the day I personally think the buck stops at the parents. If little Jimmy is going off to do a paper round then it's up to the parents to make sure he's safe.
Lets face it some kids are dangerous on bikes regardless of what they're wearing / lighting, as a parent you should be aware of that and not simply rely on legislation or suing some poor papershop owner because your child is incompetent.

Then again, I'm all for Darwinism and it definitely works best if people are removed before they have a chance to breed.

[UrbanManc]

Paper rounds are 'places of work' , sorry Kwackers , you can't get out of this one.

Newsagents provide the work, it's their responsibility to provide whatever safety equipment necessary for that job to be done safely.

I just don't go for it - not in a general sense anyway.

If I have a job delivering news papers that doesn't need a bicycle and you decide to do it on your bike then as far as I'm concerned it's up to you to make sure your bike is up to the job.

It's up to the employer to stipulate the conditions of the job, and also enforce those conditions.

and ...... (I've said it before) , they need to validate that the distance travelled is not excessive and does not need transport.

It's not down to the parents (legally or morally)to stipulate how the employer behaves towards their employees, that’s down to legislation and the enforcement of that legislation.

During the time that you employ that individual you are responsible, you must have risk assessed the work and taken appropriate action to safeguard the short and long-term effects that the work may cause to that individual, including manual handling training and you are responsible for the provision of reflective/protective clothing/bags etc.

You must also train your newspaper deliverers and make sure they are aware of all the hazards involved.

It's up to the paper/boy/girl (and parent) to use a safe and road worthy cycle, but it's up to the newsagent to check it is safe.

It's also up to the employee (parent/guardian) to make sure they understand the highway code.


Kwackers, all this information is on the net and available from your local council.

[Snakes]

kwackers I agree that the responsibility in the first instance is with the parents, however any employer taking staff on has a duty to ensure the staff have safe working conditions/equipement no matter what age the staff are.

Look at the Royal Mail as an example. They supply postmen/women with cycles, it is also the Royal Mails duty to ensure staff have cycles that are in good mechanical working order/have lights etc.

I'd suggest the above would still apply, even if the Newsagent doesn't supply the cycles, he is supplying a job to the individual, and if as I'd said in a previous post, the round is easier to undertake on a cycle then a few basic checks are essential.

I must say I'm not aware of claims involving a paper boy/girl, but as the subject's been raised, I'll do a little research.

[meic]

Is the paper shop an employer in law. I dont remember signing any contract of employment when I was a paper boy. I assume they operate this as self employment, they certainly would if they could get away with it.

[Paul Power]

Ok, so if the newsagent is responsible for the safe condition of his paper boy/girl's bicycle, then the newsagent would have to have some form of recognised qualification to ensure that the cycle is in a safe condition. Bearing in mind that not all, if indeed any, newsagents actually ride a bike.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan police does not provide its officers with shoes - with the exception of those officers who are trained in riot/public order control where they are provided with fire-resistant boots.

But the officer on the beat, must supply his own footwear, which I think most of us would agree that a copper's shoes form part of their essential equipment.

Surely under the same H&S that covers the newsagent, the same rules apply to the police.

Take also local authority/NHS trust employees etc who are classified as 'essential car users' and receive an allowance for using their own private car for work.

I'm unaware of any local authority check their essential car users vehicles for road worthiness and so on.

There is a big difference between road traffic legisilation and employment legisilation.

Ultimately the person driving a car, or riding a bike is responsible for their own actions and being an employee does not in any way free them of these responsibilities.

So when it comes to cycling on the road, a paper boy/girl cannot use the excuse 'that the newsagent didn't ensure my bike had lights or was in a safe condition and so on..'

That would be complete nonsense.

As this country yet has to introduce a recognised cycle test or the issuing of a cycle licence, then the newsagent couldn't possibly be held responsible to ensure that his staff can actually ride a bike safely or are aware of the current road traffic regs.

For example, were the said paper boy/girl to ride through a red traffic light while delivering papers on behalf of his/her employer, would the employer also be liable for prosecution - of course not.

Similarly, were an essential car user to be caught speeding and prosectuted would their employer be held liable, no is the answer.

it's also ridicoulous to suggest that a newsagent should or is responsible to ensure his staff who are using their own bicycles are up to legal standards when even a qualified national Standard cycling instructor is not allowed to make any adjustments to a cycle for one of his trainees - for fear that in the event there is an accident, they would then be held liable.

So come on, lets have some perspective here.

In this instance were the newsagent to supply his staff with bicycles, then that would be an entirely different matter.

which is why, newsagents won't supply either bikes, lights or high-viz jackets to their staff as to do so makes them entirely responsible for their safety.

In our business we supply a number of businesses with cycles for their staff to use for work - without excedption every one of these businesses have a dedicated, suitably qualified person to look after these cycles.

We're talking large organisations here, like the MOD and Royal Mail - not a local mom and pop newsagents.

Whilst I accept that employers (speaking as one myself) have a legal duty of care towards their staff as well as customers, employees also have duties and one of those in the instance of the newsagents is that it is the employees responsibility to ensure he/she complies with the laws of the road, which include having adequate lighting and so on.

Just because they're an employee does not magically remove this responsibility from them.

Were this the case it would mean even employed white van man in the country would be free from prosecution for driving offences solely on the basis that their employee, and the responsibility for their actions rest with their employers.

Paul

[UrbanManc]

the newsagent would have to have some form of recognised qualification to ensure that the cycle is in a safe condition.




Paul

Paul , first of all, I'm NOT voicing my opinion , I'm stating what the law requires, what numerous levels of legislation requires.

You've just voiced your opinion from a point of total ignorance .. nothing more.

The quote I've retained above is an example of that ignorance.

As a car owner , I am responsible for the road worthiness of that vehicle ... am I a trained mechanic ?

No I'm not.

Young people under 18 are not considered adults and therefore health and safety legislation affords them extra protection and places the onus on the adults.

Kwackers must supply all clothing ( wet weather, cold weather, hi-viz )to ALL his paper delivery staff ... it's as simple as that, it's what the LAW states ... not my opinion.

Kwackers needs to contact their local council whom often stipulate what is required, some councils will stipulate less than the legislation requires, some require more.

The police (and army) as an organisation is a totally different matter , they are not even allowed to take strike action.

Those that still can't grasp the concept .. see this link.


http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=2892

That sites lists the absolute basics, the newsagent, once they have risk assessed the routes, must then take additional measures accordingly .. issuing personal attack alarms for instance.

[kwackers]

Kwackers must supply all clothing ( wet weather, cold weather, hi-viz )to ALL his paper delivery staff ... it's as simple as that, it's what the LAW states ... not my opinion.

Kwackers needs to contact their local council whom often stipulate what is required, some councils will stipulate less than the legislation requires, some require more.

I'm getting it from all sides today, if it's not gay people I'm offending it's H&S.

Fortunately I don't have any paper delivery staff (or employees) so hopefully I'm off the hook.

I will remember this thread just in case I'm ever tempted to employ someone though...

[Paul Power]

the newsagent would have to have some form of recognised qualification to ensure that the cycle is in a safe condition.




Paul

Paul , first of all, I'm NOT voicing my opinion , I'm stating what the law requires, what numerous levels of legislation requires.

You've just voiced your opinion from a point of total ignorance .. nothing more.

The quote I've retained above is an example of that ignorance.

As a car owner , I am responsible for the road worthiness of that vehicle ... am I a trained mechanic ?

No I'm not.

Young people under 18 are not considered adults and therefore health and safety legislation affords them extra protection and places the onus on the adults.

Kwackers must supply all clothing ( wet weather, cold weather, hi-viz )to ALL his paper delivery staff ... it's as simple as that, it's what the LAW states ... not my opinion.

Kwackers needs to contact their local council whom often stipulate what is required, some councils will stipulate less than the legislation requires, some require more.

The police (and army) as an organisation is a totally different matter , they are not even allowed to take strike action.

Those that still can't grasp the concept .. see this link.


http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=2892

That sites lists the absolute basics, the newsagent, once they have risk assessed the routes, must then take additional measures accordingly .. issuing personal attack alarms for instance.

The site lists an intepretation of H&S legisilation by one particular council, nothing more as they say on the leaflet - There are several issues for you to consider.'

Somewhat different to saying something is mandatory.

Indeed where you read it through, what it says in relation to Cycle Safety is:

Bicycle safety
If you use a bicycle whilst on your round
it is up to you and your parents or
guardians to make sure it is safe for use.
Your newsagent may regularly check
this. You should routinely carry out the
following bicycle safety checks:


Somewhat different to you jumping up and down shouting at us, it's the LAW. As you can see from the above, it's merely a guideline, a sort of good practice guide as opposed to definitive H&S legislation.
The ultimate test for any H&S legisilation is a successful prosecution.

Perhaps given your expertise, you might like to quote some examples of where a newsagent has been successfully prosectuted by a council for failing to safety check their staff's cycles?

As I said in my earlier post, what Canterbury Council and prior to that your post is completely unworkable, but hey, that's what councils are good at - coming up with unworkable solutions. Just look at how they approach the matter of creating cycle infrastructure.

Also, somewhat ironic that Kent County Council are the council who over the last few years have steadfastly refused to invest any money into bringing its school's cycle training to National Standards.

So here we have a classic example of a local authority who refused to spend money on training school children to ride safety to and from school and, or, deliver newspapers on their bikes, but then tells the newsagent he's responsible for something which common sense would show is entirely out of his control.

For example, how would the newsagent risk assess whether or not paper boy/girls should wear helmets on their rounds?

Or whether or not Kent County Council have bothered to fill in the many dangerous holes in their road surfaces and so on....

As I said previously, how could a newsagent who doesn't ride a bicycle be expected to safety check a cycle.

This sort of view could only come from an over-protective, over reactionary council such as kent. Were to put as much resources into creating safer cycle routes for everyone, and, investing in adequate cycle training, rather than hitting on newsagents, I'd argue that Kent would be a safer place.

But that's only my only ignorant view..

In the absence of any stated H&S case brought successfully against a newsagent, the matter isn't as simple or as clear as you suggest.

your comments in relation to the police are not entirely correct - the most recent successful high profile HSE case was actually brought against the met police in relation to the shooting of Charles Menezes.

Paul

[UrbanManc]

"As I said previously, how could a newsagent who doesn't ride a bicycle be expected to safety check a cycle.

This sort of view could only come from an over-protective, over reactionary council such as kent."





Can you pull a lever to test a brake, can you see if lights work, can you see if any bolts are loose and tyres are inflated, can you see if a bike is a rusting heap of c*** or a reasonably maintained one.

A driver of a motor vehicle must do the same checks, brakes ,lights, steering , tyres ..... it's not rocket science.

Kent isn't " over-protective, over reactionary ", they are one of the more conservative authorities, many councils will be far stricter and insist on greater protection ... it's one of the (numerous) reasons why fewer and fewer newspapers are being delivered, maybe threatened prosecution forced many to stop the service.

I guarantee that any newsagent that refuses to supply protective work equipment and clothing and faced prosecution will be found guilty.

It's a clear regulation under the HSAW (Health and Safety at Work Act) and under the new European '6pac' regs.

The law relating to newsagents isn't my expertise, I represent members of my union in my industry but many laws cover all employment levels.

What is disturbing is the total lack knowledge and refusal to accept their responsibilities that many employers exhibit, and when it comes to children ( whom rely on adults for protection, and the enforcement of legislation )that is totally deplorable.

[Paul Power]

Indeed moving on through Canterbury's Council H&S mandate for newspaper deliver boys/girls you get this gem:

cycle helmets – wear a safety
helmet. Make sure it is the right size,
and is properly fitted and fastened at
all times. Only use a helmet that
conforms to BS/European Standards,
or equivalent.