Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi
I’m canvassing for policies and opinions for people cycling between offices in the course of their work.
What do people on this forum do about this? I’ve come up with several very obvious ideas of course.
I’ve looked at what’s on line, and there’s not much other than the usual platitudes about suitable and sufficient risk assessments and control measures. But that seems to me to be a bit of a cop out.
So my question is what is the consensus view of people here?
To be clear this isn’t about cycling to or from work, it’s about cycling between offices in the course of one’s working day, using one’s own bike or a council provided bike.
As a company we do not (and will not) provide bikes for people to use between offices.
Oh yes and we’re based in central London.
Thanks in anticipation.
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Cycling in the UK is safer (per mile) than walking (though admittedly that's averaged across the country, not specific to central London). It's more likely to extend your life than shorten it (again, averaged across the country).
It seems to me to be one of the things (like drinking coffee and wearing high-heel-shoes) where an employer should not be nannying and second-guessing or micro-managing every decision every employee makes.
Our policy (not central London - we don't have any presence there, though we do have a central Glasgow and less central in some other cities) makes no specific statement about mode of private transport, but talks about staff allowing time, planning route, picking an appropriate mode. The one non-mode-neutral thing we say is to observe that using the train is generally safer than driving and recommend that this be done where it is practical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Also remember that some people will not have cycled for 20-30 or more years before being presented with having to cycle across a busy city when the last time they did it was in the leafy suburbs or the countryside. Very iffy in my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I often work in the city, I dont even like crossing the road there, so defo wouldnt want to cycle in central London not unless you have a death wish. Too many people in hurry, too much traffic...my boss actually got knocked off his Barclays bike in London...
I defo dont beleive in Nannying anyone but wouldnt reccomend cycling to anyone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Some 475 cyclists were seriously injured on London's streets during 2013, including 14 fatalities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Graham
As part of our environmental objectives we positively promote sustainable travel including cycling, for commuting and travel for work in and around Dublin.
In so doing we recognised that there might be an increasing risk to staff travelling on a public highway. So, we did the following:
1. Arranged voluntary cycle maintenance classes (40 minutes - lunch hour)
2. Improved shower & locker facilities
3. Roll out themed safe cycling alerts
4. Provide high viz items - vests, back covers, etc
5. Provide cycle lights
We work in partnership with the Smarter Travel Workplace team who work under the National Transport Authority. They were set up to reflect the model used in London as far I am aware so a lot of help out there in this area, sitting in the sustainable space but with obvious implications for safety.
Just some thoughts
Jonty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stonecold wrote:
I defo dont beleive in Nannying anyone but wouldnt reccomend cycling to anyone
Even though it's safer per mile than being a pedestrian? Even if cycling regularly is more likely to extend your life than shorten it? I was assuming that the OP was anticipating a circumstance in which staff are PERMITTED to cycle between locations, but most of the other responses seem to assumed the OP is considering OBLIGING or REQUIRING people to cycle in central London (since otherwise the comments like "some people will not have cycled for 20-30 or more years before being presented with having to cycle across a busy city" make no sense). Perhaps Graham can elaborate? Which applies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From the OP it is clear the query is about travelling in work time, although there is a conflict with the road user providing their own equipment within the thread. Personally I would not get involved with this one as it appears to be a massive can of worms, regardless of how green or healthy riding a bike may be in the countryside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:From the OP it is clear the query is about travelling in work time, although there is a conflict with the road user providing their own equipment within the thread. Can you elaborate? I don't understand the reference to conflict - anyone driving or motorbiking to meetings during the working day for my employer provides their own equipment for undertaking the journey. Most of those cycling do too, though some have cycle-to-work scheme bikes, so who is 'providing' that equipment is a slightly more subtle question. I don't see any conflict associated with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:stonecold wrote:
I defo dont beleive in Nannying anyone but wouldnt reccomend cycling to anyone
Even though it's safer per mile than being a pedestrian? Even if cycling regularly is more likely to extend your life than shorten it? Nothing wrong with cycling in general, I was talking about cycling in central London.....Have you been to the city recently, the roads are a nightmare, the level of traffic is horrific, theres been many many fatalities over the years....why not just get the tube...its less than 5 pounds for a day ticket
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all the responses. It just goes to show how hard it is to get an idea across in text.
I'm thinking about people who voluntarily use their own or municiple bicycles to travel between sites in central London that are between 1 and 2 miles apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stonecold wrote:
Nothing wrong with cycling in general, I was talking about cycling in central London.....Have you been to the city recently, the roads are a nightmare, the level of traffic is horrific, theres been many many fatalities over the years....why not just get the tube...its less than 5 pounds for a day ticket
My observation is that traffic in the City is less now than it was a few years ago (congestion zone, I guess). I think cycling through most of London is less hazardous now than it has been at any time over the last 25 years or so (the span of time I've been doing it), I think because levels are rising, so there's the 'safety in numbers' type effect - there are more cyclists, so drivers are more used to looking for cyclists. Given the choice, I wouldn't get the tube because it's crowded, dirty, smelly, noisy and generally just all-round unpleasant with barely any redeeming features. I'd much rather cycle. The ticket price is irrelevant. I still think we need to know from Graham whether he's talking about ALLOWING people to cycle, or REQUIRING people to cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:
I still think we need to know from Graham whether he's talking about ALLOWING people to cycle, or REQUIRING people to cycle.
D'Oh. Oh for an edit - it's ALLOWING, so the concern about forcing people to do something they don't want to do is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think the ticket price is relevant, its cheap so therefore a reasonable alternative
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:RayRapp wrote:From the OP it is clear the query is about travelling in work time, although there is a conflict with the road user providing their own equipment within the thread. Can you elaborate? I don't understand the reference to conflict - anyone driving or motorbiking to meetings during the working day for my employer provides their own equipment for undertaking the journey. Most of those cycling do too, though some have cycle-to-work scheme bikes, so who is 'providing' that equipment is a slightly more subtle question. I don't see any conflict associated with this. The conflict...'using one’s own bike or a council provided bike. As a company we do not (and will not) provide bikes for people to use between offices.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:achrn wrote:RayRapp wrote:From the OP it is clear the query is about travelling in work time, although there is a conflict with the road user providing their own equipment within the thread. Can you elaborate? I don't understand the reference to conflict - anyone driving or motorbiking to meetings during the working day for my employer provides their own equipment for undertaking the journey. Most of those cycling do too, though some have cycle-to-work scheme bikes, so who is 'providing' that equipment is a slightly more subtle question. I don't see any conflict associated with this. The conflict...'using one’s own bike or a council provided bike. As a company we do not (and will not) provide bikes for people to use between offices.' Nope, sorry. I still don't get it. What is the conflict between allowing people to cycle and not providing bicycles? Is there also a conflict if you allow people to drive on company business but don't give them all company cars? My company lets people drive or cycle to meetings, and we don't have any company cars (and only a few company bikes). Are we in conflict?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Where on earth has the statistic come from stating that cycling per mile is of less danger than being a pedestrian? I find this very hard to believe but would be very interested in being proved wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just on a personal note - I am a keen and experienced cyclist, I have the opportunity to cycle many of the country roads around the central belt of Scotland, peaking at 100 miles a week at my best.
I would defiantly not take my bike through the busy city streets, I think they can be quite dangerous, i.e. I don't trust other road users.
I guess my question would be how would you ensure that you comply with PUWER 1998?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jarsmith83 wrote:Where on earth has the statistic come from stating that cycling per mile is of less danger than being a pedestrian? I find this very hard to believe but would be very interested in being proved wrong. Basically, no pedestrian or cyclists manages to kill themselves in isolation - there is almost always a motor vehicle involved. Cycling is not dangerous, and walking is not dangerous, but doing it around motor vehicles is. If you're walking you spend more time around motor vehicles - if you're going from A to B on foot it will take three times as long as going A to B by bike, and that greater exposure cancels out the effects of doing one mostly on pavements and the other mostly in the carriageway. That's my hypothesis anyway, but it's a hypothesis derived from the statistics that show it to be the case. Walking is more dangerous than cycling, per mile. So back to the issues around the OPs question - if he's got people that are going between two sites in London, they'll be safer cycling than walking. fiesta's link has the figures for London - the average from 2001 to 2010 showed the cyclist fatality rate at 28 per billion kilometres compared to 35 for pedestrians. I wasn't actually aware of that analysis, but it's a figure that's also in the annual transport stats for the country as a whole - eg https://www.gov.uk/gover...le/359311/rrcgb-2013.pdf - per mile, pedestrian fatality rate is higher than for cyclists (though serious injury rate is lower).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I can't offer a policy..nor top 100 miles a week...relatively new to journey to work cycling (no Lycra yet!!)...I agree with Toe...I am cycling in Germany at the moment to and from work 60 miles a week...the City has cycle lanes, traffic lights and vehicle and pedstrian road users follow the rules and give way to cycles (the cyclists have to follow the rules too!)...in fact compared to the UK it is cycling Utopia.
Guess what I'm trying to say by this example is that the mindset of UK Drivers/road users and the road infrastructure I am significantly generallising here just isn't supportive of cycling.
You can calculate whatever you like with statistics ...just because you travel more miles on a bike WILL make the stats look lower in comparison to Walking. Until you get a massive shift in Population mindset both by cyclists and motorists alike and the enforcement to Support cycling will always be risky...but everyoines perception of risk is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SteveDM wrote:
You can calculate whatever you like with statistics ...just because you travel more miles on a bike WILL make the stats look lower in comparison to Walking.
That's exactly NOT the point. The point is that when undertaking a utility journey (such as between two work sites) you travel the same distance whether you cycle or whether you walk. If you walk, you're more likely to get killed than if you cycle. "You can calculate whatever you like with statistics" looks quite like "I don't care what the facts are, I don't believe them". I assume those people that disagree with them will be contacting the Department of Transport to tell them that their stats are wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Graham wrote:Hi
I’m canvassing for policies and opinions for people cycling between offices in the course of their work.
What do people on this forum do about this? I’ve come up with several very obvious ideas of course.
I’ve looked at what’s on line, and there’s not much other than the usual platitudes about suitable and sufficient risk assessments and control measures. But that seems to me to be a bit of a cop out.
So my question is what is the consensus view of people here?
To be clear this isn’t about cycling to or from work, it’s about cycling between offices in the course of one’s working day, using one’s own bike or a council provided bike.
As a company we do not (and will not) provide bikes for people to use between offices.
Oh yes and we’re based in central London.
Thanks in anticipation.
Graham
It would depend on the type of work that was being carried out, and what people are wearing. How do they do this commute at present? Why cycle? Why not walk (time issues?). Personally, I wouldnt dare get on a bike in central London, my sister is a keen cyclist, and that is her main mode of transport, but she has been knocked off her bike in the last 6m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So let me get this straight...if I walk around London (on the pavement), Im more likely to get injured than if I ride a cycle around London, on the roads?
Hmmm Im sorry but thats just silly. How could you possible be more at risk as a pedestrian? Dont care what any stats say, I really dont beleive that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stonecold wrote:So let me get this straight...if I walk around London (on the pavement), Im more likely to get injured than if I ride a cycle around London, on the roads?
Hmmm Im sorry but thats just silly. How could you possible be more at risk as a pedestrian? Dont care what any stats say, I really dont beleive that No, you're more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than as a cyclist, if you do the same distance as each. You are more likely to be injured as a cyclist than as a pedestrian (but only slightly). I suggest you write to the Department of Transport and tell them their stats are "just silly". I'm sure you know much more about it than their professionals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:stonecold wrote:So let me get this straight...if I walk around London (on the pavement), Im more likely to get injured than if I ride a cycle around London, on the roads?
Hmmm Im sorry but thats just silly. How could you possible be more at risk as a pedestrian? Dont care what any stats say, I really dont beleive that No, you're more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than as a cyclist, if you do the same distance as each. You are more likely to be injured as a cyclist than as a pedestrian (but only slightly). I suggest you write to the Department of Transport and tell them their stats are "just silly". I'm sure you know much more about it than their professionals. With stats you need to look carefully at they are saying. They are looking at accidents per mile (or km) travelled. That is all accidents including boozed up prats trying to walk home along the motorway, kids running out between parked cars( the biggest killer of young children that) and old buggers ignoring red lights at pelican crossings. It does not pick out your sober sensible walking to work type person; they can’t, they don’t have that statistical information. In addition the measure is per unit distance travelled, and as the average walk is a couple of hundred yards as oppose to a couple of miles for the average bike ride then yes the stats make it look like cycling is safer than walking, but if you were to break that down into for example cycling in central London the stats would be very different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:SteveDM wrote:
You can calculate whatever you like with statistics ...just because you travel more miles on a bike WILL make the stats look lower in comparison to Walking.
That's exactly NOT the point. The point is that when undertaking a utility journey (such as between two work sites) you travel the same distance whether you cycle or whether you walk. If you walk, you're more likely to get killed than if you cycle. "You can calculate whatever you like with statistics" looks quite like "I don't care what the facts are, I don't believe them". I assume those people that disagree with them will be contacting the Department of Transport to tell them that their stats are wrong? Really...YOU actually missed the whole Point of my Statement...and only picked on a bit that anyone can critise.. in answer to your second paragraph ...that is an inflamatory Statement and your perception not mine....everyones perception of risk is different ...you really missed the Point...typical of this Forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Statistics can be very deceptive and even the manner in which they are collated can skew the data. I recall some years ago when studying a question posed whether travelling by aeroplane or train was the safest mode of transport. The answer depends on how you measure it, by miles or passenger journeys. So, the moral of the story is don't get too hung up on stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:achrn wrote:
No, you're more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than as a cyclist, if you do the same distance as each. You are more likely to be injured as a cyclist than as a pedestrian (but only slightly).
With stats you need to look carefully at they are saying. They are looking at accidents per mile (or km) travelled. That is all accidents including boozed up prats trying to walk home along the motorway, kids running out between parked cars( the biggest killer of young children that) and old buggers ignoring red lights at pelican crossings. But the cyclist fatalities also includes the boozed up prats trying to cycle home along the motorway, kids cycling out between parked cars, and young buggers ignoring red lights at crossroads. A Kurdziel wrote:It does not pick out your sober sensible walking to work type person; they can’t, they don’t have that statistical information.
Indeed, but they are probably skewed broadly similarly (neither walking nor cycling statistics pick out the proportion of people behaving more dangerously than is sensible). You can't use them to say walking a specified journey by a specified individual in a specified frame of mind at a specified time is more likely to result in death than cycling that journey. You can, however, use them to question the knee-jerk "ooh - cycling - deadly dangerous - it's practically suicidal" reaction. It's a classic availability heuristic error. Ask your subject to assess how risky cycling in London is, and they can instantly call to mind several cyclist fatality incidents, so they assume it is very dangerous. But they can call those incidents to mind because they were in the news. They were in the news because they aren't usual - the news reports only what is NOT business-as-usual. So we get the assumption that cycling is risky (because cyclist fatalities in London get press) but that walking is safe (because pedestrian fatalities don't get the same publicity, precisely because they are so common). A Kurdziel wrote:In addition the measure is per unit distance travelled, and as the average walk is a couple of hundred yards as oppose to a couple of miles for the average bike ride then yes the stats make it look like cycling is safer than walking, but if you were to break that down into for example cycling in central London the stats would be very different.
The topic was cycling between two designated sites. The journey between the same two fixed points is not a couple of hundred yards when you walk it but suddenly becomes a couple of miles when you cycle it. The per-distance figures ARE the right figures to use for the question that was raised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Lies - Dammed Lies - and Stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
So here's what I've done.
Lies - Damned Lies - and Statistics notwithstanding
Since the only information I can find is that cycling is mile for mile safer than walking, and I’m not going to get far telling people how to cross the road and sending everyone on a ‘Green Cross Code’ course (for those who remember that).
And given that I’m talking about people travelling the same distance I’ve just let people get on with it.
I’ve also put a little article in our newsletter telling people out of interest that the statistics say that cycling is safer mile for mile than walking.
Those that I know cycle all wear helmets since they use bikes regularly, and I said you should wear helmets and high visibility clothing in my newsletter piece.
So just as for waking I’m not doing anything more for cycling. I’m sure some here will say that I’m taking a risk, and I’m waiting for a ‘see you in court’ response. But then everything we do is predicated on what a court will say so this is just another risk of doing business.
Thanks for the input, the discussion was, as always, fascinating on so many levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Graham wrote:So here's what I've done.
- - -and I said you should wear helmets and high visibility clothing in my newsletter piece.
And now you've opened another can of worms! Interested in what evidence you based that advice on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
" According to the latest figures, during 2012 in the UK: 118 cyclists were killed (one every three days) 3,222 were seriously injured (almost nine a day) 15,751 were slightly injured (43 a day)" http://www.nhs.uk/news/2...ty-a-special-report.aspx"420 pedestrians died in road accidents in 2012 25,218 pedestrians were injured in road accidents in 2012 5,559 pedestrians were seriously injured in road accidents in 2012 (up 2%)" http://www.cfoa.org.uk/17802But then, there are far more pedestrians than cyclists. And, let's face it, many cyclists are accidents waiting to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.