Posted By Julian Wilkinson Our company is seriously looking into the Cycle 2 Work Scheme. Ok its a good idea and helps the staff to own a bike, get fitter, cut down on pollution etc.. However, my understanding is that the company buys the bike of the staff members own choosing then they pay a 'rental' fee for the bike until the bike is paid for but it still remains the property of the company. But the responsibility and upkeep of the push bike is the responsibility of the user. How do we stand on h&s grounds, if we as a company are providing transportation are we accepting liability for the employee? I am all for the scheme personally, but it has been asked that should we have written a policy stating that they should wear helmets, hi-vis clothing etc etc. My feeling is that we do nothing else but allow them to join the scheme because if we do dictate to staff on how to use the bike and what to wear then we are accepting responsibility. Anyone else got a take on this?

Posted By Paul Duell Isn't there a difference because Mr Stark was injured AT WORK (I'm guessing he was one of those posties who do a cycle round?), whereas bikes provided under Cycle 2 Work are intended for commuting? I'm not saying there may not be some liability, but unless the bikes are being provided for use in the employees' jobs, I don't think they're work equipment under PUWER. Section 2(1) specifically states equipment provided for use at work.

Posted By Brigham The cycle provided under this scheme is not work equipment unless used in the process of the persons work. Commuting is not "at work" and therefore if this is the only way it's used forget H&S. Why not let adults act like adults, it might just work you know! Do you check other cycles for safety when they come onto your premises?

Posted By Brigham We have thee cycle2work program here and I never got involved in it. The deal is that you use the bike maily for commuting to/from work as you say but there is a caveat that it could be used to travel to/from other workplaces, then you are technically at work and thecycle could then potentially be classed as work equipment. We built in a clause to the contract that the cycle would be maintained in a safe order and we reserved the right to inspect. To date we haven't. Sometimes we all have to take a measured risk.

Posted By J Knight Oh, OK, if its only for cycling to work and not for use at work I accept that PUWER wouldn't apply, and there wouldn't be any reason to provide PPE either. If PPE was provided though, since it would also not be for work use, there wouldn't be an assumption of duties under HASAWA, it would just be a gift (taxable benefit?). Wish somebody would give me a free pushbike, as long as it was a decent one, John

Posted By KB Just a little thought popped up when reading this thread. Would the cycles (as you said were owned by the company) be classed as company vehicles? If so would they be covered under the company insurance the same as say a company car would be? If an individual is injured whilst riding their cycle to work it would probably be a RTA but if they were off work for more than three days because of an RTA and were riding a company cycle then would this not be a RIDDOR? Just food for thought.

Posted By Liesel On the note of use of cycles at work, and with respect to issue of checking cycles if used to cycle between sites at work, I'd also look at what the company does about cars owned by user but used for work business. I have known workplaces that get hot under the collar about cyclists and maintenance/risk but happily pay expenses to car drivers without checking valid tax, license, MOT and insurance for work purposes. On such subject, I wonder, if the car the employee's but they are told they must have "access to a car" for the job, who is liable for the maintenance etc of said car...?

Posted By Andy Stokes We run the scheme and see it very positvely, though I was told of a local authority that had stopped it for reasons of potential laibility. Are we not in danger of confirming the media’s view that health and safety people are jobsworths who think only of covering their back, and not of sensible risk management? The health benefits of having more employees cycle to work are immense. The bike becomes the employees after 18 months of payments – a bit like hire purchase. How many people use bank or car dealer HP arrangements, and how many of those think the responsibility if anything goes wrong will lie with the HP company? Many companies lease the cars that people get as perks of the job. These people use them to commute (and occasionally for business purposes during the day too I gather!). How many companies would consider not having these because of the liability potential for the times the car is used on private business? Do we need to be sensible and concentrate on bigger risks to our employees health and well being?

Posted By Liesel Andy, I agree with what you say, but unfortunately there is also an issue of risk perception. I like cycling, ride a recumbent trike- provokes the common response (if it goes into a workplace) "ooh ah isn't that dangerous?". Er.... no, it isn't (in my considered opinon). It's just an unfamiliar risk- to many cyclists as well as car drivers. So is automatically assumed to be higher risk than it really is. That's one of the reasons I drew the car comparison. Many workplaces automatically resolve the "lease/ownership" issue with cars, but react a bit with cycle to work- I am aware of one company (via a cycle forum) that actually forbids use of cycles in work time as being "too dangerous" and won't do cycle to work scheme. As you say, can potentially give H&S a bad rep.

Posted By Mike Draper Sorry to raise this again, but having read all the responses above I'm not sure that the debate has run its course. The employer purchases the bike or arranges the purchase of the bike through a lease company. How is this different to the way many company cars are purchased, including those provided for company and personal use? The employee pays for the "benefit" of having the bicycle through a salary sacrifice scheme. Again how is this different to the way an employee's tax code is adjusted for the benefit in kind of having a company car available for personal use? If an incident occurs involving a company car used for personal purposes by an employee where the maintenace or condition of the vehicle was a contributory factor to what extent is the employer criminally liable and/or liable in common law for a failure to supply a suitable piece of equipment and maintain it in safe condition (PUWER reg 5) and therefore what happens when the brakes fail on the bicycle resulting in a injury? (This is a rhetorical question!) The similarities between the two scenarios (company car or bicycle scheme) are too close to suggest that they need to be treated differently unless there is a clear reason based on some other justification. At the very least, there are liability issues associated with the supply of the bicycle as a product which the employer (or lease company) must be aware of and may be worth checking with the employer's insurer, that are in fact no different than those faced by a bicycle retailer on the highstreet. Would it not be prudent to ensure that the contract between the employee and the employer for the supply of the bicycle (or whatever might crop up in future as DSE cropped up in the past) was clear that the bicycle was not in fact supplied as work equipment? The issues around this might then have been adequately addressed. However if a bicycle is supplied as an item of work equipment it should not be handled in the same manner (i.e. not hired back to the employee) and should be subject to a regime of routine maintenance and inspection.

Posted By Mike Draper Thanks for this Jay. I think the first link provides a clear reason why the a bike scheme is different to a company car scheme. The supply of a bicycle through a salary sacrifice scheme is treated as a consumer credit agreement. This means that the liability of the employer is no different than for any other supplier operating under a consumer credit agreement. Title may remain with the employer (or lease company) but responsibility for maintenance etc rests with the keeper/user. This is fine if the bicycle is provided for private use (including commuting to work), however employers should take note that if the intention is that the bicycle is used as work equipment that PUWER will apply. Thanks again Jay.