Helen

Commuting, not in the course of his employment.

Thence, not reportable.

Agreed plus you could class it as a RToad traffic accident

SBH

Hi Hilary,

The phrase is 'arising out of or in connection with work'; the IP does not have to be engaged in a work activity at the time of the incident, what matters is whether work caused ; the definition does include failures in structures, roadways and so on which are in the control of the employer. Since one of the duties in s2 of the Act is safe access to and egress from a place of work, the fact that he was 'commuting' is also not relevant, as he was on site and all workplaces have to be safe for employees to move around. Was it RIDDOR reportable then? Well, here I'm going to haver, and say I'm not sure, because it's debatable how far it's possible to keep access covers non-slippery when wet, so there was probably no actual fault in the premises, and therefore the incident didn't arise out of work; but I could be wrong. RIDDOR, ain't it great?

John

You could argue that the employee was travelling at unsafe speed for the conditions (how you would prove that would be a challenge tho'!) so still say not reportable but recorded in your system.....agree about the moving around site but this guy still hadn't finished his journey to work (think that is still relevant)....that wouldn't have finished until he parked his bike...had he then slipped and fallen on the drain cover it would have been in connection with work...?? similar to a visitor..?

don't think I'm disagreeing with you...the definition of journey to work it the point you seem to be missing...had this happened on the public highway there would be no argument. Or would you get the highways agency or local authority to report it?...don't think so... just because the public liability is on the company in this case and the highway/local authority in my example doesn't make it RIDDOR...

Hi Steve, yes I agree, if it had been the public highway there would have been no doubt about it; in my view I guess his 'journey to work' finishes when he enters his employers' premises, rather than when he enters a building (consider construction workers, agricultural workers), signs in (think about salaried staff) or gets to his workstation,

John

I've had people fall over at work (their own feet) resulting in a broken arm. I've had people slip over on ice in the car park at work. I recently had someone fall down a kerb and face plant into the pavement while walking to their car all of which have resulted in someone having more than 3 (old regs) or 7 days of work and I haven't reported a single one.

I had an EHO on site the other month and spoke to him about them and he said they aren't really interested in that kind of thing because it wasn't caused by the work process and was an accident that could of happened anywhere! a point I agree with!

IMHO this is easy - not reportable. It was on his way to work, and completely unrelated to his work, also the condition of the workplace was not a problem. Simple. BTW don't phone and ask HSE - in my experience they always say "report it just to be on the safe side". They seem to be oblivious of the fact that reportables are usually a KPI - so you only report if you are certain.

I feel we are getting into "Bonkers Conkers" territory here!!.

An employee is riding his own bike into work and falls off because he has ridden over a "slippy" manhole cover.
The employee could have had this fall on any road, these things happen. Just because it occurred on the employers car park, doesn't make any difference in my view. It was raining, roads get slippy, cyclists have to take extra care.
As for checking his bike as part of the investigation, what we do if two cars collided on the car park / approach road, check mot certs, driving licenses, tyre pressures etc.?

Let's not forget what the RIDDO Regs are about. The HSE / EH want to know about specific serious incidents and accidents that occur, which are directly linked to our work activities. Unfortunately we have no control over the weather and this is probably the route cause of this accident, together with the cyclist not taking enough care. He probably encounters numerous grids, manhole covers, patchy road repairs on his route to work each day and manages to avoid them. I suspect there will be more than this manhole cover to negotiate on his employers roads / car parks.

If you decide to report this accident and just for arguments sake, the Enforcing Authority accept it and want to know what action you have taken to prevent it happening again..........then its over to you.



John

Indeed, also we don’t know if this was a dedicated cycle path or even just a path that the manhole cover bridged completely. All manhole covers are not the same. I think the light weight pressed steel type would be more slippery than the old cast iron type.

The debate on whether the part of your journey between the company entrance and actual work station is connected with work has come up many times over the years in this forum, with strong opinion on both sides. I personally consider that it is part of access and egress as per HASAW act, and so would move onto the next criteria; was it down to the condition of the pavement, stairs, lighting condition etc etc. I think this, as why otherwise would the 3rd criteria “condition of site and premises” matter. Access and egress in my view has to start the moment they are on company property, not just 6 feet before a workstation. Don’t get me wrong just because an accident happens at work does not make it work related. The HSE guidance gives the example that someone tripping over nothing in particular is not reportable. So for me it would be down to the condition.

I do however feel the OP should decide themselves if the access / egress issue is work related. They are at the end of the day the one that will need to defend their decision.

I think it unlikely it is reportable but only the OP knows exactly the condition, type of drain cover that they have and the set up and layout they have. With all the other factors.

Perhaps this is one that could go to the HSE myth busters to see what they say – good for a giggle anyway. I don’t think the HSE want to clarify this issue, they don’t want to make a decision.

Chris