Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

DevonDamo
Posts: 1035
Joined: 24 May 2011, 1:42am

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by DevonDamo »

mattheus wrote: 19 May 2022, 9:49amThe public highway is not an industrial site. Your journey is no more hazardous than the commute to work undertaken by any/every employee. So I call balderdash, Sir!
You're absolutely right that we can do our daily commute in our pants if we so choose. However, the key point is here:
DevonDamo wrote: 18 May 2022, 9:32pmYes , providing you're actually 'at work' whilst riding between sites...
"At work..." When you're at work, your employer has a right to tell you do things. It's not that usual to be "at work" whilst on the public highway, but if you are, then the highway becomes your workplace and your employer can still tell you to do things their way. (Otherwise, the Royal Mail would be looking on in despair as their postmen tottered round in high heels and shell-suits etc.) There are limitations on what your employer can insist you do, but wearing stipulated PPE like hi vis and head protection has been acknowledged as a reasonable expectation for decades so, as I stated, the OP would need to appeal/argue their case in order to negotiate an exclusion for themselves or a change to that policy.
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 971
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by ratherbeintobago »

DevonDamo wrote: 19 May 2022, 2:03pmThere are limitations on what your employer can insist you do, but wearing stipulated PPE like hi vis and head protection has been acknowledged as a reasonable expectation for decades so, as I stated, the OP would need to appeal/argue their case in order to negotiate an exclusion for themselves or a change to that policy.
Yes, but if they're going to insist you wear it then they need to provide it.

As above, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be a policy applying to use of company/personal vehicles for the same purpose.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by mattheus »

DevonDamo wrote: 18 May 2022, 9:32pm Yes , providing you're actually 'at work' whilst riding between sites your employer can insist you wear hi vis, helmet - and mickey mouse ears if that's what they want.
If you have any employees, good luck in bringing in such a rule; assuming you are not in some business selling the likes of mouse ears, that is! The point being, you need a good reason (this might fall under safety, or commercial need, etc. But not simply the whim of a manager).

It's a common internet misconception that once you sign a contract of work, your boss is god. Not so.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by mjr »

ratherbeintobago wrote: 19 May 2022, 9:55am There is also likely to be a sustainability officer - I would have a word with them, given that HiViz etc doesn't make people safer and acts as a deterrent.
HiViz is also almost always short-life synthetic fabrics, often shipped around the world, and the other H is usually a large lump of expanded polystyrene bonded to another plastic shell which is practically impossible to recycle. If the company has to supply more and more of them, that's not sustainable and also going to dent the CO2 reduction.
I'd put that to them. Again, compliance with the HC and traffic laws should also apply to non-cyclists travelling on work time.
I think the usual expression is "travel with due regard to the highway code" rather than "travel in compliance with the highway code" (for obvious reasons where incorrect signs or failed signals make compliance with the code impossible but reasonable, cautious non-compliance is still legal) but, yes, this should be applied to all travellers or none, not used to punish cyclists.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
DevonDamo
Posts: 1035
Joined: 24 May 2011, 1:42am

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by DevonDamo »

mattheus wrote: 19 May 2022, 2:38pm
DevonDamo wrote: 18 May 2022, 9:32pm Yes , providing you're actually 'at work' whilst riding between sites your employer can insist you wear hi vis, helmet - and mickey mouse ears if that's what they want.
If you have any employees, good luck in bringing in such a rule; assuming you are not in some business selling the likes of mouse ears, that is! The point being, you need a good reason (this might fall under safety, or commercial need, etc. But not simply the whim of a manager).

It's a common internet misconception that once you sign a contract of work, your boss is god. Not so.
Don't be upset by the mickey mouse ears reference - it's what we Earthlings call 'humour.' The point it was making is: providing there's a reason, then you'll be expected to wear it, regardless of what you think of it. (Think of the horrific hair and beard nets that people in food factories have to wear.) As mentioned above, there are limitations on what can be expected, but these aren't relevant to the OP being asked to wear head protection and hi vis on a bike.

You're opposed to the employer imposing this on the OP. For the record, I never wear hi vis on my bike, and my helmet is only used for downhill mountain biking. So don't confuse my replies to the OP with enthusiasm for the idea of him being forced to wear them. I'm just answering his question, i.e. does his workplace have that right? I am very confident that they do, and that his only option is to appeal/negotiate/discuss.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by thirdcrank »

mattheus wrote: 19 May 2022, 2:38pm
DevonDamo wrote: 18 May 2022, 9:32pm Yes , providing you're actually 'at work' whilst riding between sites your employer can insist you wear hi vis, helmet - and mickey mouse ears if that's what they want.
If you have any employees, good luck in bringing in such a rule; assuming you are not in some business selling the likes of mouse ears, that is! The point being, you need a good reason (this might fall under safety, or commercial need, etc. But not simply the whim of a manager).

It's a common internet misconception that once you sign a contract of work, your boss is god. Not so.
It's also a misconception that a contract of employment must be in writing then "signed, sealed and delivered" as they say to be binding on the parties. While some particulars must be in writing and all sorts may be in writing, a large part of an employment contract will not be in writing.
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 971
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by ratherbeintobago »

mjr wrote: 19 May 2022, 2:50pmHiViz is also almost always short-life synthetic fabrics, often shipped around the world, and the other H is usually a large lump of expanded polystyrene bonded to another plastic shell which is practically impossible to recycle. If the company has to supply more and more of them, that's not sustainable and also going to dent the CO2 reduction.
I don't know. My mum did community relations for a civil engineering company post retirement and they gave her a very fine hi-viz Goretex jacket.

Sadly I suspect the CO2 impact of buying PPE from the other side of the world isn't considered, but should be.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by thirdcrank »

I believe this is a succinct guide to contracts of employment, although there's nothing specific about Mickey Mouse ears, or cycling

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/ ... mployment/
cycle tramp
Posts: 3482
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by cycle tramp »

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. If anything it's helped me appreciate my employer's point of view.
For the record I re-checked our safety policy about travel between sites. There is no mention of e-scooter use (we've got an e-scooter trial in this area) and there's no mention of using powered two wheelers (scooters /motorcycle/ mopeds) either. There's also no mention about the standards to which the helmets or hi-viz should confirm. Which suggests to me that the whole thing is a box ticking exercise...
..however the issue is with any tick boxing exercise, just because you think it doesn't carry any weight, doesn't mean that it won't carry any weight should anything bad happen..
..so I'm waiting to hear back from my H&S team. I've asked them to consider removing the helmet and hi-viz policy in the light that e-scooters and powered two wheelers aren't even mentioned and as per the suggestion I've asked for the word practical to be substituted for possible.
I've still not signed the policy and I've let my union team know. Given that the organisation has let go of its legal team and now has to pay a secondary organisation for advice, I'm interested as to what they will do next. So far I have not had a response :D
It's time to go :-)
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20697
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by Vorpal »

Nearholmer wrote: 18 May 2022, 11:28pm
As a “PS” I would say: beware of “reading across” from the PO case, and the example of the firm that told its staff not to wear helmets. The latter is a particularly poor example for most purposes, because their risk assessment was particular to the very unusual type of bikes they use, which may be nothing like the ones you use. Any “suitable and sufficient” risk assessment should look at the particulars of what you and your colleagues are using bikes for, what sorts of bikes, the environment in which you use them etc.
The risk will vary more with the type of use, than the type of bicycle. The difference between riding a cargo bike and a standard upright bicycle is not very big in terms of risk. I can well believe that the risk is somewhat lower with a loaded cargo bike & trailer, because the cyclist will be going slower, drivers are likely to give them more space, etc.

Any suitable & sufficient risk assessment should consider what preventive and mitigative measures are likely to be effective.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by slowster »

cycle tramp wrote: 19 May 2022, 10:34pm If anything it's helped me appreciate my employer's point of view.
By introducing these rules, your employer and your company's safety adviser/manager will be making a rod for their own backs. Rules like these should be introduced only where a risk assessment has determined that they are necessary. In this situation there is arguably no need even to undertake a risk assessment. Only risks which are 'significant' need to be risk assessed, and in general this sort of independent travel between work sites is unlikely to present a significant risk that needs to be controlled or mitigated by the employer, especially not a greater risk than commuting to and from work.

This is because if an employer determines that something is necessary to ensure the H&S of employees, then the employer must also make checks to ensure that the rules, safety equipment or whatever are being implemented/used. If there is non-compliance, the employer must take appropriate enforcement or corrective action. The employer must also keep records of the checks and the action that is taken to deal with non-compliance.

Failure to do the above is unlikely to have any consequence as far as enforcement of H&S law by the HSE, since an HSE inspector would not expect a risk assessment in the first place for independent travel between work sites (unless there were some particularly unusual circumstances), because the risk is not significant.

However, it potentially will have consequences as far as safety inspections/surveys/audits are concerned, whether they are internal or made by an external organisation, e.g. an auditor assessing compliance with a safety management standard. The auditor etc. will not only want to see risk assessments, they will also want to see the records of checks of compliance, and of action taken to correct non-compliance. If there are no records of checks or of non-compliance being corrected, the auditor will give a negative score and require the deficiencies to be corrected. This would not happen if there were no risk assessment and rules, because the auditor would not have considered them to be necessary for independent travel between work sites, because the risk is not significant.

It will also potentially have consequences in the event of the employer being sued for injury/death/damage involving an employee cycling between sites. The probability of an accident occurring of the type which a helmet is designed to protect against is extremely low, but if such an accident does occur and the employee is not wearing a helmet for reasons which a court finds to be the fault of the employer, the employer may be found liable to pay compensation. Examples where the employer might be held to be at fault might be if a new employee was not informed of the rule, had not (yet) been provided with a helmet, or was provided with a helmet which fitted poorly. In other words, by introducing these rules as a result of a risk assessment, the employer is determining that it owes to a duty of care which must be fulfilled by ensuring that a suitable helmet is provided, with the result that a failure to do so is an automatic breach of duty, i.e. the employer has itself created a duty of care where none previously existed, and in so doing created potential legal liability where none previously existed. In the absence of the risk assesment and the rules, the employer would probably not find itself involved in a court case, and court cases are extremely disruptive for businesses and staff, often taking up a lot of people's time and company resources, whatever the outcome of the case.

The need to enforce rules about helmet and hi-viz wearing will potentially also have consequences as far as employer-employee relations and staff morale are concerned. Some people will not want to wear them. Some will be aware that their effectiveness and value is not strongly supported by scientific studies, and will resent being made to wear one simply because the employer is box ticking. But having introduced the rule, the employer will have to enforce it, if necesary to the extent of taking disciplinary action against employees who do not comply. All of which will be completely unnecessary, since the risk is not significant.

I have already outlined above how I would word a company policy on cycling between sites to avoid these problems. The employer could also tell staff that it will pay for a helmet (and pay for a replacement helmet after 3(?) years) and provide a hi viz vest and/or jacket to anyone who wants one, with it remaining each employee's individual choice whether and when to wear them. I would however make it clear that this offer should not be abused, e.g. helmets being sold on ebay. The employer could also offer to pay for a mirror for an employee's bike if they wanted one, because, like many of us on this forum, I think mirrors offer a far bigger safety benefit than helmets or hi-viz.

However, my personal preference instead of paying for helmets etc., would be to arrange for a Bikeability instructor to provide some roadcraft training for employees who cycle. Training is expensive, especially when the employees' time out from normal duties while receiving training is factored in, and the benefits of training are often intangible (unlike a polystyrene hat or bright yellow vest) and difficult to quantify, which often makes high quality training difficult for many organisations to justify. Neverthless, it is very often the most efficient and cost effective safety measure. A couple of hours or so of roadcraft training is likely to reduce the risks far more than a helmet or hi-viz. Several hundred pounds for a training session might seem a lot of money, but a single accident cycling (whether between sites or commuting) to one employee resulting in time off work will probably cost more than that. Training is the most effective measure of altering and improving people's skills and behaviour, and the investment and commitment by the employer is likely to be appreciated by employees as a mark of the employer genuinely caring about their welfare.

A final comment. I suspect that the hemet and hi-viz rules were drawn up by someone with a fairly low level of H&S qualification/experience, e.g. a NEBOSH certificate holder. If, however, they were prepared by a H&S consultant, then I suggest the company gets a new consultant. Good consultants are not cheap, but they should save a business money and help it avoid pitfalls. Bad consultants may be cheap, but are likely to cost the business more.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by thirdcrank »

I don't think we know why this policy was formulated. imo That's important because it's fundamental to how you respond, if at all.

If you can't get a satisfactory response through negotiation then AFAIK your options are very limited: broadly, to complying under protest when you would then have a limited time to quit and claim constructive dismissal or to carry on regardless and face any consequences, as and when
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote: 20 May 2022, 12:41pm I don't think we know why this policy was formulated. ...
OP has commented
cycle tramp wrote: 19 May 2022, 10:34pm ... Given that the organisation has let go of its legal team and now has to pay a secondary organisation for advice...
And cynic in me guesses that new people have to "Oh my God, your previous people didn't even do ..." followed by "We must do this ... but we will have to charge you (lots and lots of money) for this work but how did your previous people overlook this!"

Ian
Blondie
Posts: 239
Joined: 23 May 2021, 5:11pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by Blondie »

Pete Owens wrote: 18 May 2022, 9:43pm
slowster wrote: 18 May 2022, 9:00pm Has your employer stated that it is going to provide you with a helmet (and hi-viz), or give you the money to buy them?
If they are requiring them as items of PPE then they must provide them by law.
Bicycle helmets are not classified as PPE.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Help! Work has brought in their own safety policy on bike travel between sites

Post by thirdcrank »

Psamathe wrote: 20 May 2022, 12:53pm
thirdcrank wrote: 20 May 2022, 12:41pm I don't think we know why this policy was formulated. ...
OP has commented
cycle tramp wrote: 19 May 2022, 10:34pm ... Given that the organisation has let go of its legal team and now has to pay a secondary organisation for advice...
And cynic in me guesses that new people have to "Oh my God, your previous people didn't even do ..." followed by "We must do this ... but we will have to charge you (lots and lots of money) for this work but how did your previous people overlook this!"

Ian
That only says who formulated it.............
Post Reply