Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
GordonSellers  
#1 Posted : 18 February 2011 12:39:14(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
GordonSellers

Does any organisation have a policy on whether or not a cycling helmet is mandatory when an employee is allowed (but not required) to use a cycle on the highway when working? This excludes commuting to a regular place of work, but would include travelling from one work location to another. Advice appreciated. Gordon
m  
#2 Posted : 18 February 2011 12:54:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
m

I believe the Post Office has a policy but this type of thing is not legislated and will be based on your risk assessment. In such a case the helmet will be PPE
barnaby  
#3 Posted : 18 February 2011 14:46:07(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

GordonSellers wrote:
Does any organisation have a policy on whether or not a cycling helmet is mandatory when an employee is allowed (but not required) to use a cycle on the highway when working? This excludes commuting to a regular place of work, but would include travelling from one work location to another. Advice appreciated. Gordon
There have been threads before on this; eg: http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...osts&t=83051&p=2
Phillip Clarke  
#4 Posted : 18 February 2011 15:04:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phillip Clarke

A good article on the BBC's site about cycle helmets, discussing both sides of the argument: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12333783 Personally I am convinced by the case for making cycle helmets compulsory for everyone riding a bike. As such, if I was developing the Risk Assessment for cycling at work I would make wearing one mandatory. The think that the Police make wearing helmets mandatory when their officers cycle.
SteveL  
#5 Posted : 18 February 2011 15:11:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

Personally a good starting point would be to get them to use the cycle lanes that have been provided. Bikes may well be healthy but are environmentally unhealthy due to the traffic that they hold up. Rant over Why not allow the person using the bike the choice, they have the choice to use the bike don't they
barnaby  
#6 Posted : 18 February 2011 16:15:18(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

stevel wrote:
Personally a good starting point would be to get them to use the cycle lanes that have been provided. Bikes may well be healthy but are environmentally unhealthy due to the traffic that they hold up. Rant over
Maybe they don't go where they want to ride; or cars are parked in them; or they're in poor condition.
stevel wrote:
Why not allow the person using the bike the choice, they have the choice to use the bike don't they
Yes, quite.
SteveL  
#7 Posted : 18 February 2011 16:21:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

quote=barnaby] Maybe they don't go where they want to ride; or cars are parked in them; or they're in poor condition. Maybe they should pay cycle tax, and then just like car road tax it could be used for something completely different
barnaby  
#8 Posted : 19 February 2011 11:55:19(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

stevel wrote:
quote=barnaby] Maybe they don't go where they want to ride; or cars are parked in them; or they're in poor condition. Maybe they should pay cycle tax, and then just like car road tax it could be used for something completely different
Since you can buy a car that doesn't pay excise duty* why should bikes suddenly attract it? *As Churchill said when 'road tax' was abolished "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created". Prophetic words, eh?
SteveL  
#9 Posted : 19 February 2011 15:04:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

quote=barnaby] Since you can buy a car that doesn't pay excise duty* why should bikes suddenly attract it? *As Churchill said when 'road tax' was abolished "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created". Prophetic words, eh?
As you say you can buy a car that has no duty, but cycle users exercise the right to act how they please with total disregard for other users. If I use my horse on the road then I have to comply with acts and regs, including registering him and having him insured. Then why not cyclists. I can perfectly understand that children should be able to use the roads in safety. But adults when they request cycle lanes and the like, then with total disregard for others do not to use them and believe they have the right to disrupt and delay, Well. But this is going from the fact that helmets for the use of cyclists should be by choice. If you choose to use the road then you should choose how best to protect yourself, we all know how bad they can be , but choice is the option IMO
Phillip Clarke  
#10 Posted : 19 February 2011 15:06:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phillip Clarke

So should motorcyclists have the choice whether to wear a helmet? Or car drivers / passengers the choice whether to wear seat belts?
SteveL  
#11 Posted : 19 February 2011 15:25:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SteveL

IMO if I take the risk then I pay the cost, whatever this may be, not run around looking to apportion blame because I wasn't able to take a decision on my safety, and I need somebody to tell me. I made the choice. And yes because of this I have been injured, but it was my choice to take the risk, and I paid the price. This is a personal opinion.
pete48  
#12 Posted : 19 February 2011 17:07:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Gordon, a couple of links that make interesting reading. The BMA saying that helmets do reduce injuries and a typical page from a Cyclists Club saying that they do not! http://www.bma.org.uk/he...ngsafecycling.jsp?page=2 http://www.ctcyorkshireh...rg.uk/campaigns/velo.htm Who is right? I don't have a definitive argument but the majority of the stuff I have read accepts that some reduction in severity of accidents is seen. So, when I made my choice I went with the "wear it" camp. Stevel. The flaw in your suggestion that you "pay the cost" is flawed because you never pay the cost in full. If you are injured and are not wearing a helmet, and your injuries are more severe than otherwise, the additional cost of your treatment is borne by all of us. Directly in the UK via the NHS and by insurance premiums elsewhere. There may be social benefits post accident that might also accrue, once again paid for by all of us. P48
cliveg  
#13 Posted : 19 February 2011 18:45:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cliveg

Hello Gordon All police forces that use bikes do have a mandatory cycle helmet policy. Some of their PCs and CSOs do thousands of miles a year. Not only do they help with road safety, they are better than the traditional helmet for preventing harm when dealing with people that don't want to be dealt with! Clive
David H  
#14 Posted : 19 February 2011 20:30:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David H

I am a safety manager who does not dictate my global safety requirements. I do however have 2 young grand children who I go cycling with and We will not go out without cycle helmets - no argumants. Now I accept not at work - but if that is me at home - then I will do so so at work and I will try and get at my cyclists - who are commuting - to follow safe practice. Agree it is down to RA and the willingness of management to assist! David
safe as a house  
#15 Posted : 19 February 2011 21:25:55(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
safe as a house

Its simple helmets, helmets, helmets! I work as a Paramedic in Ireland, believe me they help considerably! Ask yourself this question if you had a loved one out on a bike which would you prefer helmet or no helmet?
barnaby  
#16 Posted : 20 February 2011 20:11:07(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

stevel wrote:
Personally a good starting point would be to get them to use the cycle lanes that have been provided. Bikes may well be healthy but are environmentally unhealthy due to the traffic that they hold up. Rant over
stevel wrote:
Personally a good starting point would be to get them to use the cycle lanes that have been provided. Bikes may well be healthy but are environmentally unhealthy due to the traffic that they hold up. Rant over
stevel wrote:
As you say you can buy a car that has no duty, but cycle users exercise the right to act how they please with total disregard for other users. If I use my horse on the road then I have to comply with acts and regs, including registering him and having him insured. Then why not cyclists. I can perfectly understand that children should be able to use the roads in safety. But adults when they request cycle lanes and the like, then with total disregard for others do not to use them and believe they have the right to disrupt and delay, Well.
You seem to have some issues with the bicycle! Take a deep breath. PS if you include a '[' before 'quote' then the quotes should display properly.
barnaby  
#17 Posted : 20 February 2011 20:12:20(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

safe as a house wrote:
Its simple helmets, helmets, helmets! I work as a Paramedic in Ireland, believe me they help considerably! Ask yourself this question if you had a loved one out on a bike which would you prefer helmet or no helmet?
Anecdotes are not the same as evidence.
barnaby  
#18 Posted : 20 February 2011 20:14:23(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

cliveg wrote:
Hello Gordon All police forces that use bikes do have a mandatory cycle helmet policy. Some of their PCs and CSOs do thousands of miles a year. Clive
Actually, I've seen quite a few police officers on foot wearing head protection, too!
barnaby  
#19 Posted : 20 February 2011 20:27:06(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

pete48 wrote:
Gordon, a couple of links that make interesting reading. The BMA saying that helmets do reduce injuries and a typical page from a Cyclists Club saying that they do not! http://www.bma.org.uk/he...ngsafecycling.jsp?page=2 http://www.ctcyorkshireh...rg.uk/campaigns/velo.htm Who is right? I don't have a definitive argument but the majority of the stuff I have read accepts that some reduction in severity of accidents is seen. So, when I made my choice I went with the "wear it" camp.
And it's interesting to note that the BMA has significantly changed it's position since it's report in 1999, recognising, for example:
BMA wrote:
They are most effective at low impact speeds (approximately 13 mph or less), such as when a cyclist falls from a cycle without the involvement of other vehicles.
and
BMA wrote:
Cars presented the most substantial risks to cyclists in all types of setting and resulted in 52 cyclist fatalities and 1,813 serious injuries to cyclists. Cyclists admitted to hospital following collisions with motor vehicles are most likely to have injuries to the head or face (49%) or legs and hips (36%). Crashes in which there was no direct collision result in more injuries to the arms and shoulders (47%).
Clairel  
#20 Posted : 20 February 2011 20:34:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

stevel wrote:
As you say you can buy a car that has no duty, but cycle users exercise the right to act how they please with total disregard for other users. If I use my horse on the road then I have to comply with acts and regs, including registering him and having him insured. Then why not cyclists. I can perfectly understand that children should be able to use the roads in safety. But adults when they request cycle lanes and the like, then with total disregard for others do not to use them and believe they have the right to disrupt and delay, Well.
I always get cross with the whole cyclists hate motorists, motorists hate cyclists, horse riders hate everyone, etc etc etc. Same old same old. People need to try and see it from each others perspectives. First, I ride horses and cycle (and drive) so I am not biased either way. BUT horses are not legally required to have insurance to be ridden on the road either. Many do but it's not a legal requirement as far as I'm aware. Many cyclists are in fact covered by insurance (I am). Living in the country as I do I can also say that horses hold up traffic as much as bikes do. Many cyclists ride irresponsibly but then so do many horse riders (mobile phones, no ni-viz clothing, riding too-skittish horses on roads, riding one horse and leading another on the road.....and some not wearing hats). So really I can't see any criticism that you can throw at cyclists that can't also be thrown at horse riders. Good and both in both wouldn't you say? As for cycle lanes there is evidence that cycle lanes can do more harm than good, with cyclists at greater risk of being hit by a vehicle when it's alongside a road than in normal circumstances and obvious issues with dual cycle and pedestrain paths (pedestrians can be just as bad at straying onto cyle paths). We live in a crowded soceity and so thse issues are bound to occur. Lets not blame one group of people over another. It's everyones responsbility. As for the subject in question. Well there's no right and wrong is there. There are arguments for both. Personally I would say enforce cycle helmets for an at work activity. But how about asking your insurers what they think??
Invictus  
#21 Posted : 21 February 2011 11:50:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

stevel wrote:
quote=barnaby] Maybe they don't go where they want to ride; or cars are parked in them; or they're in poor condition. Maybe they should pay cycle tax, and then just like car road tax it could be used for something completely different
I find it very difficult to drive the car I have paid tax on whilst riding my bike. But I don't seem to get a tax refund even though I am not using my car. Maybe we should all use the roads like taxi drivers and then we could all have total disrefard for every other road user.
Thundercliffe26308  
#22 Posted : 21 February 2011 12:54:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Thundercliffe26308

so ............are we for against wearing a helmet??. i rode a trike for a few years and on a personall note i never wore a helmet .... bit rebellous but as its not the law......tnhis could go on for ever surely it is personal choice...unles its identified in a risk assessment for a work activity. At this rate we will be doing risk assessmnets for people using the bus/tube/car/motorbike/boris bikes for people coming into work. I am going to work from home
Invictus  
#23 Posted : 21 February 2011 14:31:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Wear one.
barnaby  
#24 Posted : 21 February 2011 14:40:30(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

farrell wrote:
Wear one.
Treat them like adults and stop nannying them. Leave it up to them.
Invictus  
#25 Posted : 21 February 2011 14:57:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

barnaby wrote:
farrell wrote:
Wear one.
Treat them like adults and stop nannying them. Leave it up to them.
If your carrying out a risk assessment then would it be suitable and sufficient as a control measure to say only wear a helmet if you want to?
barnaby  
#26 Posted : 21 February 2011 15:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

farrell wrote:
barnaby wrote:
farrell wrote:
Wear one.
Treat them like adults and stop nannying them. Leave it up to them.
If your carrying out a risk assessment then would it be suitable and sufficient as a control measure to say only wear a helmet if you want to?
But where do you stop? There are quite a lot of head injuries to pedestrians (and car occupants); would you risk assess the need for them to wrap their heads in polystyrene too? If you're not careful some of the newspapers may start suggesting you health and safety people are going too far and then the government might even ask for a review.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.