IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Provision and use of cycle helmets when cycles are used at work.
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Neil Maycock
Has anyone any experience, example policies, procedures, etc (and/or example risk assessments) when cycles are provided for use at work (or if private cycles are used at work) on the public highway?
Should their wearing be mandatory and, consequently, helmets are provided by the employer.
All HSE has on the subject is that they are not classed as PPE under the PPE Regs 1992.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Blenkharn
I cannot imagine the range of responses that may appear (well, I can, but never mind that).
But for those who say YES, please explain what you do about mobile phone use and other distractions for company drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Yes I would supply and encourage their use, they are well established safety equipment and relatively cheap compared to the costs of dealing with an absent employee.
No Ian, I will just answer poster's the question. :-) We have covered mobiles elsewhere, to death. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Maycock
Tabs
Thanks, and I agree with your views. However, the issue at the heart of my query is when should 'encourage' become 'mandatory'?
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sen Sar Hi Neil Not sure where you would stand on the mandatory point as there is no legal requiremnt to wear cycle helmets in the UK. Maybe some form of presentation on cycling head injuries would help. This link seems useful http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=489
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
As I have mentioned before on other threads, your company, your rules. Every bit as enforceable as law whilst on site.
Mandatory becomes a problem when you have an offender and no-one in senior management backs you up, or the offender is senior management.
Encouragement using real instances may work.
Maybe an incentive? Those wear helmets get a benefit not given to those without helmets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Felicity
Just a slightly different angle - but I'm sure I read somewhere recently (may have been the CTC magasine) Drivers actually pass closer to cylcists wearing helmets than those who do not also cyclists with helmets can be proven to take more risks and have more accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Neil, As a 3000+ mile a year cyclist, I am well aware of the limitations in the protection that cycle helmets actually provide. Whilst I choose to wear one there is a lot of research, which challenge these. As an example in Holland where these are rarely in use, the risk of a cyclist sustaining a head injury is considerably less than in the UK and in Western Australia when mandatory helmet use was introduced, the proportion of cyclists sustaining head injuries considerably increased. If you have a look at this article in the BMJ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/c.../full/321/7276/1582#SEC4 , this states "it still takes at least 8,000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death" and there is balanced argument for pedestrian helmet use because six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi On our site, we have a mandatory cycle helmet requirement. Our "cyclists" are commutters and they do not use cylcles for work. What they do outside our site is their business, although we encourage proactive safety outside work too. There is only one person out of some 30 cycle users (not all are regular)does not wear a helmet--therefore he has to dismount on arriving! We do not provide the helmets as the cycles are not used at work. Our site speed limit is 15 mph and is strictly enforced( we have a speed radar gun--the ones speeding are delivery drivers!) However, it would be difficult to enforce a compulsory rule when it is not a requirement in law. There is some interesting ROSPA guidance on this, but even ROSPA at this stage is not campaigning for mandatory wearing of cycle helmets. http://www.rospa.co.uk/r...y/info/cycle_helmets.pdfRather than comparing pure numbers, it may be better to compare "rates" for pedestrian and cyclist fatalities:- refer to table 7b at;- http://www.dft.gov.uk/17...pratesbymode.xls#Chart7b!A1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Al.. Simon Jenkins in the Guardian has views on the wearing of helmets and expresses them well. http://www.guardian.co.u...p/19/transport.transportI suggest that you make helmets available at the company's expense to those who want to use them but it should be left to individuals to decide whether they wear them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
Neil
As others have said you can put what you like in your policy, but it should be based on the findings of your risk assessment. Then you will need management support to back up policy.
Also check with your insurance company and explain to them that some employees use their own bikes for company business. CTC members are automatically covered third party only, but I'm not sure if it covers business use. If you contact CTC they should be able to advise you.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Neil and others,
Will the company incur any liability with supplying this equipment?
On a personal note I always wear a helemt when 'off roading' but never on th eroad, I just do not feel comfortable.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Greenhouse
Surprised not to have seen Royal Mail mentioned here. They supply cycle helmets to staff who have delivery bicycles and it was mandatory for those staff to wear them when I was employed there. However actually getting the staff to wear them was difficult.Staff did get disciplines as did managers for not enforcing wearing but I still see the majority of Royal Mail staff on their red bikes without them wearing helmets. The difference between making rules and making them work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Hufton
We are a social housing provider and have offices local to the housing stock. We are piloting some “pool” bikes for staff to use while out on the patch. The primary reasons are the environmental and health issues. As the health and safety advisor but also a cyclist (8000km+ last year) I got the poison chalice of implementing it. On the issue of helmets it’s a thorny one, we provide them and staff are strongly recommended to wear them. However, there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet. While I would always wear a helmet I believe that if this was the only barrier to someone using a bike, the benefits of riding still outweigh the risks of not wearing one.
We only have 3 bikes at the moment and are moving them around the offices to get staff opinions. I will review the guidance if we expand the scheme. I have to say, take up has not been great!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
Neil
You could always contact the Post Office. I think there was a case recently regarding the bikes as work equipment.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jez Corfield
We have staff who choose to use a bike for work....
...and we are not leaving any gaps, we have a policy, provide bikes which are then subject to a formal inspection (bikes are tagged with their 'MOT'), there is a short 'test' to ensure competency, staff are required to use PPE and hi-vis equipment, staff sign off on the rules for safe cycle usage. This may appear excessive, but this takes precious little time and our approach means we can say with all confidence that we have done everything reasonable under the circumstances
We view it as work equipment (potentially dangerous) - especially poignant as a cyclist died near one of our sites recently (not an employee).
Jez
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
We have mandatory cycling helmet policy that is strictly adherred to.
For company bicycles helmets are provided to individual users.
Employees cycling into work must either wear a helmet or push the bike along (not stand on one pedal and free wheel because 'thats not cycling'!)
Many of our cyclists also enter in road race events where helmets are mandatory so they have no issues.
I have had a number of reports from users who would not normally wear helmets to say that it has saved them from serious harm when they have come off (medical opinion not mine).
The most recent accident was on a site road where a cyclist was momentarily distracted and came off after hitting the curb. His helmet is in bits after hitting the edge of the curb but he is relitively unscathed.
If anybody would like a copy of the photo I can e-mail it.
This policy has been in place for about 10 years and was introduced after one of cyclists was recieved head injuries while cycling.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Farrell
If the cycles belong to the company they come under PUWER, Stark v Post Office. It is not a legal requirement that helmets are worn so this would be down to your own policy. I am yet to see a post man with a cycle helmet on riding his bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Hufton
SNS
Well, what an utter waste of time that document is! refers to "bicycle at work" in the introduction the goes on to waffle about fleet vehicles and never touches on bikes or riders. Typical lip service afterthought from the DOT! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Neil and others,
Will the company incur any liability with supplying this equipment?
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin CMIOSH
Surely cycle helmets are PPE ? I don't understand the comment that the HSE says they are not.
It doesn't matter whether there is a legal requirement to use them on public roads or not. Employees are duty bound (under HASAW) to comply with safety requirements. If the employer deems it necessary (through PPE assessment) then employees have to comply or look for a new job.
And this is the point. Under most cases I cannot imagine a circumstance where helmets would be mandatory (apart from racing). If travelling on public roads then I would suggest that helmets are available upon request (but then there is the issue about whether the 'personal' part of PPE means you can't have pool helmets to go with pool bikes.
As far as the comments on relative safety between Holland & WA, surely all this proves is that the very well developed cycle paths in Holland that segregate vehicles from bikes results in fewer fatal accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By robot gort Everybody on this thread is making an assumption, that cycle helmets prevent death or injury. This assumption is completely incorrect, and nowhere with a helmet law or increase in helmet wearing because of promotion and propoganda has been able to show any reduction in risk to cyclists. The only demonstrable effect has been a reduction in the number of cyclists, with a resultant rise in risk to the population as a whole because the indisputable health benefits of cycling are lost to a considerable number of people. So mandating helmets is completely negative in H&S terms, resulting in the shortening of many lives and the saving of none. Take a look at www.cyclehelmets.org for a few facts, not assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter F.
I am pretty certain we have covered this before. My view is that for private use of cycles if they own them then you do not have a say. If they are company and during company use you should risk assess and put your control in place if you decide yes they will wear them then that is what they have to do.
We have a strict policy on the use of mobile phones whilst driving and we also have a company wide ban on smoking in a company vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
Training
I looked for a long time and was not able to find suitable cycle training for those at work - the police, royal mail and similar were nice but not helpful
On a humorous note an MD of one company who wanted to introduce cycles demonstrated a new machine to his staff and immediately the cycle handle bars fell apart as; we found out later, it had been put together by children [yes children!], as a well known bike supplier uses children in another country to assemble such kit and then imports them into the UK! The machines were expensive ones!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
Do we really believe that people have stopped cycling and retired to a unhealthy lifestyle because they were asked to wear helmets!!!
Our policy was put together after a number of accidents on site and with the support of many of our cyclists.
We have had several cyclists report that in there opinion their helmet saved them from significant injury and in one case, where the helmet was split in two with the force of hitting a kerb edge, the doctor reported it almost certainly saved him from a life threatening injury.
It amazes me that people can argue against the benefits of helmets. It seems obvious to me that plastic and foam scraping down the road is better than flesh and bone.
Another aspect was highlighted when one of our cyclist was struck at a roundabout by a car travelling at approximately 40mph. He suffered significant multiple injuries and was luck to survive. When interviewed by the police they asked him if he was wearing a helmet. When he asked why they asked it turned out insurance companies ask for the information.
They will significantly reduce the claim, if a helmet is not worn, in the event of a head injury as the rider is deemed not to be doing all that could be reasonably expected to mitigate any injury.
I won't be entering into a debate regarding helmet use and statistics. Our policy has served us well and has positive feedback from the many competition cyclists we have on site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
This post is 12 months old to the day. Happy birthday post.
Going back to the original question. You have to do what is reasonably practicable. So if you are expecting employees to cycle in the course of their work you will have to do a risk assessment. If your risk assessment highlights the need to wear cycle helmets, then you have to provide them. I cycle on average 5 to 6000 miles a year. Always wear a helmet. If you've got something worth protecting, then protect it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simone Granger
[“Do we really believe that people have stopped cycling and retired to a unhealthy lifestyle because they were asked to wear helmets!!!”]
Well, considerable evidence does seem to support that.
[" --- and during company use you should risk assess and put your control in place if you decide yes they will wear them then that is what they have to do.”]
But, does your risk assessment actually consider the efficacy of the cycle helmet?
[“Another aspect was highlighted when one of our cyclist was struck at a roundabout by a car travelling at approximately 40mph.”]
Helmets are just not designed for minimising head injuries in collisions with cars at those sort of speeds. From the literature I’ve seen, if the person in this 40 mph collision had been wearing a helmet it would have made it equivalent to about a 39mph collision with no helmet.
[“If you've got something worth protecting, then protect it.”]
Are you sure a couple of inches of polystyrene is the answer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
I was standing outside a pub in Stanhope in County Durham talking to a man who was buying his horse a pint. It was a fairly windy day, and a gust picked up a shade umbrella, spun it over, and brought the end of the sollid iron pole down onto the top of my head with quite some force.
As it happens, I had cycled to Stanhope, and hadn't yet taken my cycle helmet off, so it cracked and my skull didn't. Moral? Always wear a cycle helmet when you go to the pub,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
Simone,
could you please site your evidence that indicates that people have stopped cycling because of cycle helmets and give me an indication as to how many people have followed this route.
I'm aware that helmets are designed for lateral impact on a fall but I've now seen four helmets which were split in two during falls and collisions. They were happy that the 'bit of polystyrene' saved them from more significant damage.
Since the introduction of the policy we have had one individual who cycles to work and dismounts at the gate rather than wear a helmet. Since the policy has been in existence for over 10 years I doubt he will change. Others have adopted the policy wholeheartedly and a few have seen first hand benefits.
I get the same issues and arguments with all PPE as you only really appreciate its effectiveness when it is tested in use.
Only 1mph reduction on impact - I'll take that every time
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
I like the post asking if it is reasonably practicable to make cyclists wear helmets, then why not pedestrians.
I work in central London and regularly have to cross many busy roads in the course of a day and often see accidents where people are hit by cars, other people and (notably) cyclists.
Indeed I tripped over the other week and grazed my hands and knees, should I wear gloved and knee pads to go with my helmet when walking in the street, after all given the state of the pavements a trip and fall would be considered reasonably foreseeable wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
Andy,
Fair challenge but
Our policy and risk assessment cover the workplace and includes pedestrians.
We have crossing points around site, reduced the speed limit to 20mph and require all parties to adhere to the highway code.
The reasonably practicable element surely relates to segregation of pedestrians and traffic rather than PPE.
In the case of cyclists its not reasonably practicable to put cycle lanes in.
regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
John,
That's sounds perfectly reasonable on a managed site, I am talking about central London.
We don't have many crossing points and it's every man to himself crossing most roads.
There are plenty places where the cyclists prefer the pavements and pedestrian crossings rather than the highway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
How many pedestrians do you know walk at 20mph. I know quite a few cyclists who can cycle at this speed quite comfortably. As stated earlier do a risk assessment and if you think its reasonably practicable to wear one then issue them. If you can come up with an argument for not wearing them then don't.
Top Gear recently did a test. Apparently the fastest thing on wheels in London is a push bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simone Granger Here’s some evidence: http://www.newscientist....TC-rss&nsref=online-newsBritish Medical Association. Cycle Helmets. London: Chameleon Press, 1999 Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning, Rapport 3, 2002 Hendrie D, Legge M, Rosman D, Kirov C. An Economic Evaluation of the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in Western Australia. Road Accident Prevention Research Unit, University of Western Australia Ratcliffe, P., Bicycling in the ACT - a survey of bicycle riding and helmet wearing in 1992, ACT Department of Urban Services, Canberra, July 1993. The compulsory wearing of helmets by car occupants would probably have a much greater impact on the overall number of head injuries (head injuries to car occupants are far more numerous than cycling head injuries). And if there was a decline in car usage, as a result, there would be a consequent benefit for cyclists! If they also took up cycling or walking they would improve their health too! And the more cyclists the safer cycling becomes, so even less need to impose them on cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
Steve,
when a pedestrian falls over (or is hit by a cyclist) their head will hit the pavement at approximately the same speed as a cyclists, it's gravity that is the issue, not the speed of travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Benny
A few simple points to consider:
- Pedestrians walk on foot paths, cyclists ride on the road.
- A cyclist when hit does not usually fall straight to the ground, they are usually thrown in the air some distance (same for pedestrians I agree)
- The cyclist is usually moving at a greater speed than a pedestrian when hit therefore having a greater impact.
- It is not always the ground that creates the damage
- Usually, the cyclists hands/arms are doing other things apart form cushioning the blow.
- A cyclist is on the road for a significant greater time than a pedestrian increasing the likelihood of a crash
- A cyclist maybe hidden in blind spots therefore making them unseen for drivers.
Coming from Aus, where helmets are mandatory although not necessarily enforced, the only persons you see without helmets are adolescents who do not know better.
Just because it is not illegal does not mean that it is the right thing to do....it is not illegal to swim with crocodiles, but would you do it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
So what your saying is that if I'm travelling along at about 20mph and fall of my bike, my head will hit the deck at the same speed as a pedestrians who trips over and is walking at about 3mph. Interesting! I know a few cyclists who might disagree with you.
The way I look at it is if you think you can convince a judge or a jury that you were right not to do something then go ahead, don't do it. Somehow if you don't issue cycle helmets to employees who cycle in the course of their work, I don't think you would be able to convince either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
I like Benny's contribution.
This could be an opportunity for a proactive approach to workplace safety....
Would be interesting if training and instruction is given to people who are provided cycles for work purposes under PUWER?
Cycling proficiency test comes to mind... oh those school days !
But I tend to agree with the right thing to do viewpoint just because it isn't the law... yet doesn't mean it's not required... most employers & employees are taught H&S responsibilities from a moral as well as a legal viewpoint?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
I'm not arguing agianst the use of cycle helemts, I belive people should be able to make a choice, rather than make them mandatory.
Educate them on the risks and provide them with helmets if they want them.
Afterall, a person who does not know crocodiles are dangerous may well swim with them until they are informed of the dangers. Some people who know they are dangerous still choose to swim with them.
Out of interest, I am fully aware of the dangers of cycling and choose not to wear a helmet (Well at least I did until my bike got stolen).
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Provision and use of cycle helmets when cycles are used at work.
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.