H&S and Risk assessments

For discussions within the Cycle Training profession.
Mike Sales
Posts: 5806
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: H&S and Risk assessments

Post by Mike Sales »

pjclinch wrote:The continued promotion of helmets in training is, I think, a cock-up on multiple fronts more than a conspiracy.


A conspiracy does not need to be conscious and explicit to be effective. When interests and world views coincide it is easy to accede to this sort of nonsense.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.".

Posts: 13783
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: H&S and Risk assessments

Post by pete75 »

Mike Sales wrote:
pedals2slowly wrote:Absolutely agreed, anyone in industrial H&S knows that PPE is bottom of the list in 'Hierarchy of controls', if ONLY we could get the general public, politicians, safety 'campaigners' and other cyclists to understand that there are many many things to tackle before helmet wearing it would be a tremendous step in tackling the real problems of safety when cycling on the road.

I suspect that controls higher up the hierarchy might involve changes or restrictions which impinge on other groups of road users (or road builders) and that is precisely why there is so much helmet propaganda. If helmets are the solution, then it is up to cyclists to make themselves safe, and nobody else need do anything.
These people do not want to understand.
Helmets are a diversion and an alibi.

To put it another way, if helmets are the answer then what is the question?
User avatar
Posts: 4188
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: H&S and Risk assessments

Post by pjclinch »

pete75 wrote:To put it another way, if helmets are the answer then what is the question?

As Peter Walker's chapter heading in the excellent Bike Nation states, “If Bike Helmets are the Answer, you're Asking the Wrong Question”
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Posts: 5260
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: H&S and Risk assessments

Post by drossall »

pedals2slowly wrote:Anyone else wondering if written risk assessments are fit for purpose?

Of course the major issue is where written assessments are not communicated to all the relevant people, which will include at least the trainees and any assistant trainers. For clarity, I'm not involved in cycle training, but certainly I've seen this elsewhere - the RA does the box-ticking and covering against later challenge, but doesn't actually reduce risk much because no-one (else) who matters knows about it!

Whereas a group of three or four leaders who had had a proper discussion of the risks in an activity could certainly testify, if needed, that this had taken place - and would be more likely to continue with a dynamic assessment during the activity itself.

If I were investigating an incident, and were presented with a written RA, I'd still want evidence from participants as to whether they'd seen the document, so a written one doesn't even create that much more certainty. This is not to say that a written one is not valuable for other reasons.
Post Reply