Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn Have been asked to produce a brief on cycling at work - to and from places of work for an interview and am looking to see if I have missed anything or if anyone has done something similar?
I think I have all the legal requirements brakes, - lights and reflectors at night. adhering to signage and not cycling on pavements etc
Provide advice on helmets high-vis clothing, and maintenance.
One thing am not sure about is if they are used for work would it be required under PUWER for planned inspection and maintenance?
Your advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap How about some form of competence test or bike efficiency
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap Yes they are part of PUWER. If fact there is a law case regarding a postman. I'm sure somebody else will know about this
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman Tricycles are much safer than bicycles. And easier to park.
Can a traffic warden "do" a tricycle ?
Merv
If supplied by the employer then PUWER obtains.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gff in response to the toecap off the top of my head
(c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited Stark v Post Office (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 2 March 2000
Where Reported Summary Legislation Cited History of the Case Citations to the Case Case Comments
Where Reported
[2000] I.C.R. 1013
[2000] P.I.Q.R. P105
(2000) 97(14) L.S.G. 41
(2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 150
Times, March 29, 2000
2000 WL 191131
Summary
Subject: Health and safety at work
Keywords: Bicycles; EC law; Equipment; Negligence; Statutory duty
Catchphrases: equipment; employers duties; absolute duty to maintain in working order; stricter approach than under EC law
Abstract: S, a postman, was injured when the stirrup on the front brake of his delivery bicycle broke. S's claim for damages for personal injuries was dismissed and S appealed, contending that there was an absolute obligation on the employer under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 Reg. 6(1) to ensure the safe and efficient operation of all equipment. Moreover, it was argued that Council Directive 89/655 was concerned to set a minimum standard and did not prevent member states from putting in place more stringent requirements.
Summary: Held, allowing the appeal, that Reg. 6(1) imposed an absolute obligation and as the bicycle was not in an efficient working order when the brake broke, the post office was in breach of its absolute duty under the Regulations. The Directive set a minimum standard in terms of the duty of employers to ensure the health and safety of workers but Member States were free to adopt a stricter approach.
Judge: Waller, L.J.; Robert Walker, L.J.
Counsel: For S: Michael Redfern Q.C. and Simon Wood. For PO: Christopher Storey Q.C. and Richard Copnall
Solicitor: For S: Simpson Millar (Leeds). For PO: Nabarro Nathanson (Sheffield)
Legislation Cited
Factories Act 1961 s. 22 Factories Act 1937 s. 1 Factories Act 1937 s. 22 Factories Act 1937 s. 22(1) Factories Act 1937 s. 24(1) Factories Act 1937 s. 152 Factories Act 1937 s. 152(1) Factories Act 1937 s. 155 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 s. 33 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s. 33 Mines and Quarries Act 1954 s. 81(1) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 2932) Art. 3(1) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 2932) Art. 4 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 2932) Ord. 2932 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 2932) Reg. 6(1) Shipbuilding Regulations 1931 (SI 1931 ) Council Directive 89/655 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work
This may not apply if it's thier own bike though and a look at cycle shop website under cycle for work initiatives eg alpine bikes or wiggle you get vouchers and discounts if you buy a bike to get back and forward to work
G'
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn Thanks Toecap, gff, Merv
I am assuming my prospective employer will not be supplying the bikes but if i was to draw a paralell with employees bringing in their own equipment to work then it would still apply...
Hadn't thought of proficiency test - just awareness I'm assuming the cycling will not be mandatory so the people should be keen cyclists
Merv, As for the warden vs the trike i think if it was nice enough someone else may do it first. So security may be an issue
And carrying items on the bike...
How about mobile phone use while cycling? 3 points on your licence?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman For a start, bikes, or trikes, don't have a number plate and you don't need a license.
So if I parked my trike in a bus lane, what could they do ?
But I do acknowledge that I could be done for being drunk and in charge. However. It's still safer on a trike.
Merv
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs If the bikes were personal property, PUWER would not apply ("Provision of...").
If they had an accident whilst on company business, regardless of geographical positioning, they would be a vicarious liability to the company. So if rider falls into path of Car "A" and Car "A" hits a wall vicarious liability could occur.
Regardless of whether fault was human error or mechanical failure, Car "A" could claim damages from the company (there may be a counter-action against the employee if they are insured e.g. household policy with 3rd party liability).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Pope I would try the Cyclist Touring Club, from time to time their magazine interviews folk who cycle to work.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Stewart What about the environmental aspects?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William I have always wondered if it would be possible to done for drink driving if riding a bike when a bit worse for wear. When I was at school we had to go through a cycling proficiency test, perhaps this type of basic safety training would a good idea and if anyone refused you tell them to get on their bike (sorry i had to).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By sylvia If the person does cycling for a significant part of the time at / for work as part of the job, (such as a park ranger, police officer, test rider?) there are other aspects to consider.
Ergonomic: bike type, sizing & adjustments, suitable saddle for longer use, padded or ergo bar grips, clothing, (not just helmet) including eye protection, gloves, welfare (first aid, fluid intake), provision for carrying loads (or just all the above!), lights, and mudguards.
Repetition of cycling movements can create or worsen musculo-skeletal conditions. Also lone working must be an element too.
Streetwise riding is not intuitive - CTC could probably help with additional training advice.
Probably other stuff I haven't yet thought of . .
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian P A cyclist is more likely to be killed on the roads than a car occupant. The bald statistics are 169 motorcyclists killed per billion miles travelled compared to 59 pedestrians, 56 cyclists and only 4 car passengers. What comes first personal safety or protecting the environment?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte You maybe able to find online ;-) infomation about training and resources provided for the MET police in some of their campaigns to get bobbies back on the beat/streets and on bikes.
training, visability, safety, checks, maintenance, helmets, bells, hydration...
Des
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.