Hi All

For the 3rd time in 8 yeas we are reviewing the practicalities of having Pool Cycles. The brief is specifically :
1.Pool Bikes for use at lunchtime from our office - to set up scheme to provide bikes for staff use at lunchtime with relevant safety and servicing checks.
2.Roll out accross Aylesbury akin to Boris Bikes

The specific challenge is "Please give me all the reasons why this will be difficult. Then find all the practical solutions to these reasons so we can get it implemented and soon."


Previous work has focused on cycles for use as work tyranmsfort
1. That the use of cycles, in order to facilitate for the likes of speedier access between buildings, are directly associated with the Council's business.
2. That the cycles belong to the District Council.
3. Appropriate personal protective equipment will be provided by the Council.

We understand that there are no legal requirements to take or pass a proficiency test in order to legally operate a bicycle on public roads. That said, however, we are potentially talking about civil liability claims where the Council could be accused of breaching their civil law duty of care if they were to solely rely on a self declaration from an employee concerning their proficiency to physically operate a bicycle. There are also other issues to consider in this regard, e.g. what is the employee's understanding of the Highway Code and the rules pertaining to the safe operating of vehicles on public roads?

As far as we are aware there is no specific Employers or Public Liability case law relating to the use of bicycles in a work environment and therefore difficult to predict how the Courts would judge should an claim arise relating to the Council's use of bicycles.

It was felt wise for that the Council establish an appropriate proficiency test for employees who use bicycles for part of their work activities and not solely rely on a self declaration from an employee. This could either be done via 'in house' resources or alternatively via competent 3rd party service providers.


We would be interested in hearing advice from anyone who operates any type of Pool Cycle SCheme and how they overcame these barriers. Many thanks

In -house trainers;

Unless the in-house trainer is competent to train and train in that type of thing then external cycle experts are the people to use. The police are a start point

Thanks for the responses. Much of what is in my e mail is from our insurers.

I am fully aware of accident /maim rates, especially within our District where we had the prosecution of a cyclist in Buckingham who killed a pedestrian on the pavement and outside our offices had a cyclist decapitated on the A41 following a collision with an LGV over the last few years.


It is because of the high risk nature of cycling that we do not have a pooled scheme atm. I am also aware of the maintenace issues incurred with Boris Bikes.

As indicated, if anyone has experiences of operating a Pooled Scheme for leisure use for employees would appreciate sharing those, including that of costs and maintenace and cleaning of shared cycle helmets etc. We are a district council with approximately 500 employees and am fearful that this will not be an administration free, cheap option and there must be others who are doing this successfully.

... though lower than the rate for pedestrians walking.

Does anyone require a third party competence assessment of employees before allowing them to walk on the pavement? If not, why not? Why is cycling regarded as "high risk" but walking is not when the fatality rate for pedestrians is higher than that for cyclists?

(DfT figures fatalities per billion kilometres: pedestrain 26, cyclist 21)

regards, Ian Smith

We haven't introduced pool bikes, but we did do a risk review (I wouldn't say it was as detailed as a risk assessment) when we introduced the tax-free-bikes scheme and made some effort to encourage cycling to work (put in changing room, lockers, shower, secure bike parking, etc)

If you want to spin it as "make a lot of assumptions about staff", then yes, that's what we did. That's pretty much what everyone does when you do a risk assessment, isn't it? Make a load of assumptions about what staff will do?

With specific respect to helmets, in any other circumstance we (those on this forum) would be outraged at a risk measure which first of all turned to PPE (and inappropriate PPE at that - cycle helmets are designed and tested for falling off at low speed, not being hit by a motor vehicle).

Our (my place of work) risk review eventually boiled down to the observation that actually, statistically, cycling is pretty safe. As a means of transport from A to B, it's safer (with respect to fatality and life-changing injuries) than walking. So your staff going to M&S are on average more likely to be killed walking there and back than cycling (according to the DfT). According to the BMA, cycling regularly is more likely to extend your life than shorten it (whether or not you wear a helmet, even though the BMA supports helmet compulsion).

We (my place of work) don't require staff choosing to walk to the supermarket to wear hi-vis or helmets. We don't require similar PPE for tasks and activities with similar risks, ergo we don't require it when staff choose to cycle. If staff want to wear such things, we provide helmets, hi-vis and similar equipment on the same favourable purchase terms that we do bicycles.

We don't provide cycle training (or walking training). We do provide extra/advanced driver training for our high-mileage drivers, but we don't have anyone that spends as much time cycling as some of our people spend driving.

By assumption I meant organisations just buy cycles and let anyone use them, what do the Post Office and Police do?'

Now there is a coincidence - reading the thread I was just thinking about Stark v Post Office, where the employee (postman) suffered a serious injury due to a catastrophic failure of the bike. The case resulted in the decision that PUWER Reg 5.-(1) is an absolute duty and not qualified by 'reasonably practical', even though the bike had been maintained and the failure was due to metal fatigue which would not have been identified in routine maintenance.

Bikes need to be maintained and serviced, but this applies to all work equipment. The above case is an exception and should not deter an employer from providing them for use, with a RA/PPE of course.

Maintenance
5.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.