It's a pure road traffic accident on the public road, so can't be a RIDDOR regardless of whether the employer is at fault.

Not RIDDOR but section2 HASAWA may apply Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health if the bike can be classed as "plant"?

You say 'for use outside of working hours' so although not at work and as has been highlighted not RIDDOR there could be some liability incurred if it was proved the bikes were in any way defective or not subject to regular maintenance.

I wonder if the traffic accident responses (while normally correct) are missing the point. IF the accident was not "..arising out of or in connection with work.." then surely it isn't reportable; full stop.

Chris, it is my understanding that PUWER Regulation 5.—(1) is an absolute duty and not subject to the qualification of resonably practicable as per Stark v Post Office. 5.-(1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

The question is, are the bicycles work equipment, which would be entirely dependant on the individual situation. If the bicycles were purchased by the employer for employee use to conduct a task in relation to the business, then yes they would be considered work equipment. If they were purchased for a task that has no bearing on the business and for use by employees not at work, I cannot see how they would be classed as work equipment. As an aside, regardless of the application of PUWER I don't think HASAWA would apply to this particular accident, as it is clear the employee was not "at work" and the accident was not related or as a result of the business activity.

I had a similar experience to Graham about the reporting in relation to schools and sports injuries, but was fortunate to have a copy of the HSE guidance that demonstrated quite clearly that the particular accident/injury wasn’t reportable. The reporting requirements for schools are though, as Graham has pointed out, slightly more tricky at times. But when it comes to RIDDOR, the first question that I tend to ask myself is whether the injury was connected with work or a work activity. If not then not reportable. If it is, does it meet the criteria for a reportable injury (a fatality is generally quite clear cut!), is it over 3 days, is it a defined major injury etc. The road traffic ‘thing’ tends to kerflumox many but the RIDDOR guidance is pretty explicit on what sort of ‘road accidents’ are reportable and which aren’t, and they even provide some examples to assist. Just to pick up on Kate’s post at #2; fault or blame isn’t a material consideration in whether an injury is reportable or not under RIDDOR (or for that matter whether or not it goes in the accident book). RIDDOR is simply a reporting mechanism within defined parameters REGARDLESS of blame or fault.

Barnaby - I am not convinced. The requirement to report accidents in relation to those not at work, is still dependant on whether the injury arose out of or in connection with work. I personally don't think the scenario suggests this. Happy to be wrong though.

"Going to the local town" is not a work activity unless the journey is on business. And a bicycle accident on a public road is not reportable. Those are two separate reasons - each good enough on their own - why this is not a RIDDOR. Fault doesn't come into it (which was what I said - not sure why this was interpreted as the opposite).

And I thought it was quite refreshing to see answers to the question that was actually asked, instead of answers to a completely different question that wasn't asked.

Kate, in fairness, the use of the word ’regardless’ seemed that you were suggesting that ’fault‘ might be a consideration. If you weren’t then I apologise. I was merely seeking to clarify. Phil - in the round, I agree, but, whether we are risk managers or not, I wonder why this should mean that we forget RIDDOR etc? RIDDOR may be one of our responsibilities (if we are the responsible person) and is something that we might need to consider. In fairness it was the question asked at the top of the thread. Giving consideration to (getting ’hung up’) regs etc is surely often a necessary and unavoidable part of our work. I don’t see that being a risk manager and ensuring that we consider the requirements of the law are mutually exclusive. Part of the risk management role is to also to identify and manage the risk of the employer being prosecuted or sued (where this is permissible) for a breach of their legal duties, however likely or unlikely this is. Of course if we manage the health and safety risks, that particular risk should never arise. If only! As regards civil liability, while there MAY be civil liability, it isn’t entirely clear to me from the post that the employer has been negligent for the cable breaking, although it is not unreasonable to suggest that he might have been. But that has to either be established or accepted.

Sorry - should have clarified that I wasn't "taking a pop" at OP. More considering how it would look to an outsider. Guy has had accident - and we spend much time considering whether we should report the accident. Less about how we could prevent it happening a second time. Phil

A few posters. including myself mentioned civil law in our first responses in this thread.. I personally think its positive to discuss these topics, as that’s where thoughts / interpretations are shared and you learn from them. I agree with your statement about the bikes needing to be fit for purpose, but that is different from managing them under PUWER (and the associated management systems)!! This is where the differences could apply in a civil claim, hence why I thought it useful to discuss the point. Yes it can get nitty gritty, but that’s way it can get with dealing with these cases, and I’d rather be informed and in the best possible position to deal with them! (and these types of discussions have helped in the past clarify certain requirements).