Posted By Tim Pegler
We provide a number of 'pool bikes' to staff in an attempt to get them to use the car less and cycle more. When they are using them for work, our risk assessment identifies cycle helmets and high-vis tabards as suitable PPE.
Should the wearing of such PPE be made compulsory, or can we strongly advise it's use but not enforce it?

Posted By John Webster
I'm sure many of us could tell this story.

A few years ago my son fell from his bike, striking his head on the kerb. He was unharmed, but his helmet was split from end to end. I am convinced that had he not been wearing the helmet, his skull would have suffered that fate. He took the helmet into school, and the class teacher used it to generate a class discussion on cycle safety, particularly use of helmets. And very effective it was.

In principle, I would support compulsory helmet wearing wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, once the cyclist is out of sight of parents (or the company safety officer) it is very difficult to enforce. It would fall to the Police, and they no longer seem to enforce any of the existing laws relating to cycling if my own observations are anything to go by (I can't remember when I last saw a cyclist being prosecuted for anything, yet they ride without lights at night, on footpaths, up one-way streets, in pedestrian zones, and now even along railings and park benches).

So, like in so many other areas, education rather than compulsion has to be the way forward.

Posted By Lee Ainsworth
Tim

If your risk assesment shows the need for PPE and one of your control measures are cycle helmets, then I believe it should be made compulsory. Surely it is the same as any other work practice where PPE is used as a control measure. Hard hats are a control measure on building sites and steelworks, therefore they have been made compulsory. If you did'nt make them compulsory and one of the employees had an accident whilst not wearing one, how would you explain the findings of your risk assessment in an industrial injury case.
Saying this if you do make it compulsory, it's going to be difficult to police if the employees have to leave there wokplace.
Maybe the best option would be to eliminate at source and not use bikes.
They could always use the efficient "public transport" that makes us so proud.

Regards

Lee

Posted By Laurie
It is the duty of every employee to co-operate with an employer as far as statutory requirements to ensure health and safety are concerned.

If your risk assessment, as required by HASAWA, show that a helmet is required then your employees are committing an offence by failing to wear one, and it becomes a disciplinary matter.

Now that should put the cat among the pigeons!

Laurie

Posted By Mark Large
You have a knife edge to walk because you want to encourage these people to use the cycles. Get heavy handed and they won't.

I say make sure you have a wide range of sizes and styles of both jackets and helmets. If people think they look cool they'll be more likely to use them. If they don't think they look cool they won't wear them despite the benefits.

After that its down to education.

Posted By Brian Dawson
On Ians point the PPE Regs as amended now make require ppe to be provided only for the person who will wear it for the purposes of ensuring hygiene and absence of risks to health;

More generally I love the way most people are basing their judgements on anecdotal evidence. I know a bloke who spent a week in intensive care from a head injury sustained when he was driving his car. So should I be advising making crash helmets compulsory?

Posted By Brian Dawson
Jerry you need to check with PPE Reg 3(1)(d) too. That is if the bikes are being used on the road.

Posted By Lee Ainsworth
Ian,

Do'nt forget a noise assessment for the traffic that they would be exposed to while out on the road. Also there is the exhaust fumes that they would be exposed to (this could work out expensive!).

Seriously though, to reiterate what has been said previous, if it's PPE then it should be made compulsory.


Lee