Hi I guess this is a time where similar questions are arising and we seek thoughts from others?

We are a manufacturing plant and we are approximately 15 miles into the countryside and we dont provide transport.  we have encouraged car share for CO2 reasons and employees also car share for financial reasons daily 30 mile trips can be costly.  I have two question as i am curently having to review.  I am also well aware of the 2m social distance rule.

1. Employer duty of care:  Generally do employers have a duty of care to enforce a 2m distance to and form work?  And should an employer provide the alternaive?

2.  How have others coped with this situation? We have some who dont have a car and some who will really face finanical hardship on the extra fuel cost? ( They know the risk but in reality people are desperately trying to get over hurdles and thankful they are able to work in this current climate)

3.  Employer Duty of care?  Do employers have a duty of care in relation to HSAWA safe access and ingress to work? would this include travel routes as described above?

Thank you in advance, any response would be greatly recieved Thank you

If these are private vehicles being used to commute then it is nothing to do with the employer.

We have seen the opposite - operatives moaning like mad about a lack of separation in some areas of the shop floor who promptly bundle four up in a car at the end of shift.

I don't agree that it's the case that the government has said everyone but essential workers should self-isolate.

Self-isolation is for those with symptoms, they stay entirely indoors and even avoid food shopping, so that they do not infect others.

Some retail and leisure businesses have been closed.  In other kinds of businesses, people are supposed to work from home where possible, but can still under current rules go in to work if their work cannot be done from home.

Ray, they also say 6 feet which says quite a lot about the level of proper planning that should have, but hasn't been put into pronouncements that send very mixed messages.

The UK started to adopt SI units in, I think, 1972. Various metrication regulations then translated 6 feet 6 inches into 2m. Which was appropriate as 2m is MUCH closer to 6'6" than six feet.

The likes of Boris are of an age where they should be able to count in both imperial and metric but he is amongst those who seem to have been incapable of recognising what either 2m or 6 feet means if what we have seen on TV from Govt briefings and positioning in the House of Commons is anything to go by.

Possibly they thought that they should be applying the standard set out by WHO - one metre, but if so, then that is the advice that should be given!!

There have always been problems expressing dimensions particularly what 6" looks like (when compared to the reality it being about a third of a rule) which is likely why they were standing so close:

(6 x 2 + 1) x 4" = 52" = 1.32M

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

There have always been problems expressing dimensions particularly what 6" looks like (when compared to the reality it being about a third of a rule) which is likely why they were standing so close:

(6 x 2 + 1) x 4" = 52" = 1.32M

Ok I’m probably falling into some sort of trap but, you mean approx. one half not one third. A normal rule is 300mm which is approx. 12 inches, so 6 inches is approx. 150mm.

1metre = 39 inches and one yard = 3 feet which is 36 inches so 6’ 6” ( 6 feet and 6 inches) = approx. 2m. 

Sadly I come from an era where I had to learn both. So an engineering apprenticeship where things were measured in both thou and microns ( sometimes on the same engineering drawing). So 1mm = 39.37 thou. But still simpler times than now.

Yes Ray, I did have those pictures in the Commons in mind.

Definitely not following the 2m or 6 feet rule on the front benches and for some not even a one metre rule (that I understand has been adopted in France following the guidance from WHO) -

As for the huddle around the Speaker, well obviously nowhere near ANY of these "social distance" parameters.

Then all amongst this anarchy, Boris comes up with an edict, but it would appear that the emergency legislation doesn't actually say e.g. only one outing for exercise per day, nor that any of the interpretations that have been made e.g. that exercise should be within 2km of your home or for a maximum of one hour per day has any legal foundation.

So, as example we could probably legally jump in the car and head some 15km south to the moors to walk amongst the wind turbines where it would be extremely easy to keep 2m away from those we don't know - in sharp contrast to the Botanic Gardens (three streets away) which are reported to be VERY busy - but if what some Police forces are doing were replicated up here, then we might need to worry about being stopped, perhaps with some excuse like - "it would be difficult to rescue you should you break down" - But, doing a simple risk assessment, I know that there is a good road network from here to those turbines and I can see that there is no snow on the moors - so it would NOT be difficult for the AA to get to us and if I fell over and broke my leg amongst the turbines, well all the paths are designed to be accessble by motor vehicles (for the obvious reason that the turbines need to be accessed for maintenance).

If it is very easy to see that the rules are not based on a proper risk-based assessment, then those rules lack credibility and are likely to be broken. 

At this time, I can do my own risk assessment and conclude that if I do break my leg when walking the dog (or if he were to break his leg), then it is much easier for all concerned if I stay closer to the emergency services (including the vetinary ambulance). 

Which perhaps suggests that an appeal for us to use our common sense might be more effective than issuing edicts that have little regard to risk. 

This might have resulted in e.g. restrictions being imposed in London earlier (rather than too late) and conversely being imposed in Scotland later (so that when they are actually more needed are likely to be better observed) + much earlier restrictions to stop people moving UNNECESSARILY to escape from high risk areas to remote parts of the UK like the Orkney Islands.

I suppose one benefit is that we have heard very little from one political party that seems to be keeping its head down with the exception of some random comment about keeping out Chinese ventilators. [Trying to make sure I don't break the Forum rules, nor mention the B word!!]