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

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
AM1  
#1 Posted : 11 August 2016 17:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AM1

An employee chose to use their bike to travel into the city to go to a meeting. They injured themselves carrying their bike up some stairs. Within scope of risk assessment or not? I think it may be a step too far
gerrysharpe  
#2 Posted : 11 August 2016 17:24:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

I would say that bikes are not supposed to go upstairs and they should of left it chained up to something on the ground floor. was there a cycle park on a higher floor?? then why didn't the person take the approved route to the said floor? There is no safe way to carry bikes up stairs. Self inflicted
AM1  
#3 Posted : 11 August 2016 17:28:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AM1

I agree. But should we really be delving into that level of instruction when staff are travelling between sites?
Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 11 August 2016 20:30:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So the employee likely carries it up several flights of stairs to store it in their flat because the H&S gestapo from property management have told them they cannot secure it in a communal open area at the residence "Fire Regulations you know" making the activity of carrying a cycle up stairs a common practice. And when they arrived at the meeting the jobs worth at reception told them they could not leave it in the area "cos of elf n safety". As a profession aren't our fellow practitioners in reality our true worst enemies? If they walked to the meeting and tripped up in the street? slipped on ice? get run over by a drunk driver? Twisted their back getting in to / out of a company paid for taxi, colleagues car, hire car? Burned their backside with the company issued jet pack? Some reality please....... That said the employee should be placed in disciplinary measures for failing to follow company travel policy (assuming you have one) - your comment "the employee chose" indicates the activity was neither checked with or sanctioned by site management i.e. a situation outwith the companies ability to plan or control
thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 27/04/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 27/04/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 11 August 2016 20:30:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So the employee likely carries it up several flights of stairs to store it in their flat because the H&S gestapo from property management have told them they cannot secure it in a communal open area at the residence "Fire Regulations you know" making the activity of carrying a cycle up stairs a common practice. And when they arrived at the meeting the jobs worth at reception told them they could not leave it in the area "cos of elf n safety". As a profession aren't our fellow practitioners in reality our true worst enemies? If they walked to the meeting and tripped up in the street? slipped on ice? get run over by a drunk driver? Twisted their back getting in to / out of a company paid for taxi, colleagues car, hire car? Burned their backside with the company issued jet pack? Some reality please....... That said the employee should be placed in disciplinary measures for failing to follow company travel policy (assuming you have one) - your comment "the employee chose" indicates the activity was neither checked with or sanctioned by site management i.e. a situation outwith the companies ability to plan or control
thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 27/04/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 27/04/2021(UTC)
AM1  
#6 Posted : 12 August 2016 08:09:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AM1

I was asked if we should ban people from using their bikes... It's times like these I feel like just getting my coat..
thanks 1 user thanked AM1 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 27/04/2021(UTC)
gerrysharpe  
#7 Posted : 12 August 2016 08:38:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

i think you need to use Common sense and stop people making a mockery out of something which really should not of happened. Did the person with the bike plan his trip and decide where he was going to leave his bike whilst he went to the building? Did he have a padlock and chain, if not that could explain why he insisted on taking his bike up the stairs. We do not allow bikes to come into the building at all at work, theres places outside where people can lock up their bike. We take this stance because, it prevent damage to internal decorations, Prevents injury to other from coming down the stairs, when someone is trying to carry a bike up. Prevents Injury to the person through bad manual handling. Its not a dig at cyclists but there is normally no provisions for bikes to be bought into an occupied building, i've certainly never done a risk assessment for carrying a bike within the building. Common sense plays an important part in Health & Safety, and sometime you need to draw the line under stupidity
Invictus  
#8 Posted : 12 August 2016 08:57:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Did you train them how to ride the bike and did you train them how to pick up the bike and how to carry it upstairs? Or did you tell them not to carry it upstairs.
douglas.dick  
#9 Posted : 12 August 2016 10:05:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
douglas.dick

To me the red herring here is the mode of transport, yes the journey to/from other sites should be part of RA. The mode of transport will form part of that. The company would be held vicariously liable regardless of mode of transport if its part of their normal duties. But we all look at these things from a different perspective which is why this forum can be useful.
Graham  
#10 Posted : 12 August 2016 10:07:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Graham

I was thinking about riding bikes between sites a while ago and discovered that over about a mile cycling was safer than walking in London! It surprised me, but if we’re going to work with an evidence base then I guess that’s what we should do. So cycle or public transport rather than walk. Oh Dear, I’m losing the will now (smile)
Invictus  
#11 Posted : 12 August 2016 10:16:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Well no wonder she couldn't carry the bike upstairs, with knee pads, elbow pads, a helmet, cycling shoes, a heavy bike. Did you check she had her 'cycling proficiency badge' and her walking up and down stairs safely certificate. I was asked once when we where thinking of getting into scheme were employees can get cheap bikes if we were going to provide a trainer. I said I would do it when asked if I had a certificate for the training I told them no but I had trained my kids and I would just hold the back of the seat to steady them. I can't write on here what I was called but I bet you can guess Anyway I bet they will see you in court! Why take responsiblity for yourself when you can take someones money instead.
Brian Hagyard  
#12 Posted : 12 August 2016 10:29:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Invictus wrote:
Anyway I bet they will see you in court! Why take responsiblity for yourself when you can take someones money instead.
And there is the issue I agree Invictus, would the HSE or LA enforcement officers be bothered about this - I hope not. Would some solicitor use it to try and earn a quick buck? Sadly yes. We were promised a number of years ago that the Health and Safety monster would be slain - it is the worry about people being sued that drives this type of action. had this been an employee in a cycle shop carrying stock upstairs I would view it differently, but an employee choosing to use their own bike and carry it upstairs should be their responsibility!
Elfin Davy 09  
#13 Posted : 12 August 2016 10:52:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Elfin Davy 09

Going back to AM1's original post, as the cyclist injured themselves going up the stairs, I'd say it probably WAS a step too far ! Sorry, couldn't resist - well it IS Friday... :-)
sadlass  
#14 Posted : 13 August 2016 09:25:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
sadlass

I can't believe some of this thread. "The employee chose" equals a breach of travel policy - really? Companies have such things? So they injured themselves. It was reported (as that is presumably what you ask for). No indication that injury was very significant, or that the person is 'blaming' the organisation in any way, and even if they do - let your insurers worry about it. Just file the report and get on with other things. You can 'ban' cycling for work purposes, but it really is inappropriate, and contradicts all sorts of other 'national objectives' - carbon & traffic congestion reduction, healthy lifestyles etc. Cyclists frequently carry their bikes. If indoors it usually because there is no proper secure and convenient provision to leave bikes outside. The injury incidence and severity from this is low, and usually because the cyclist has poor technique - so needs more practice! Don't worry about whether they use helmets either . .
thanks 1 user thanked sadlass for this useful post.
aud on 26/04/2021(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#15 Posted : 13 August 2016 11:25:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Travel Policy - why companies have such things: Litigation/prosecution concerns associated with "grey" fleet often discussed on this forum (driver licenced covered by business insurance in a road legal vehicle). Rules on allowable expenses defining the mode of transport, cost of tickets and whose travel is paid for. And dependent upon the arrangements of the cycle to work (not cycle for work) scheme all the safety equipment - helmet, pads, Hi-Vis - ends up listed in the terms again trying to stave off any employer liability.
Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 13 August 2016 11:25:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Travel Policy - why companies have such things: Litigation/prosecution concerns associated with "grey" fleet often discussed on this forum (driver licenced covered by business insurance in a road legal vehicle). Rules on allowable expenses defining the mode of transport, cost of tickets and whose travel is paid for. And dependent upon the arrangements of the cycle to work (not cycle for work) scheme all the safety equipment - helmet, pads, Hi-Vis - ends up listed in the terms again trying to stave off any employer liability.
firesafety101  
#17 Posted : 15 August 2016 10:59:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

I like this one, so many what if's and buts. Full credit to the employee for cycling to the meeting, this should be supported for all the right reasons. Question is did the employee ask if there was a proper cycle shed or somewhere provided for the bike to be kept safe and secure. If yes then that is where it should have gone. If not then why not take it upstairs although not necessarily carrying it.
RayRapp  
#18 Posted : 15 August 2016 11:15:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Another really interesting topic...the reality is there may be many reasons why someone would need to lift their bike. For example, lifting over a (high) kerb or some other obstruction. Can a RA really take into account every possible scenario - no. If it was me I don't think I would have reported the injury unless it was very serious. Perhaps it's indicative of the world we now find ourselves in where every little issue is reported or someone else's fault.
Victor Meldrew  
#19 Posted : 15 August 2016 15:59:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Victor Meldrew

AM1 wrote:
I was asked if we should ban people from using their bikes... It's times like these I feel like just getting my coat..
Know what you mean AM1 - you couldn't write it. Last week it was auditing chairs, now bike issues..... wait for it because one day someone is going to bring up someone injuring themselves when falling out of bed whilst switching the alarm off for getting them up to go to work..... ;-)
gerrysharpe  
#20 Posted : 15 August 2016 16:47:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

Victor Meldrew wrote:
AM1 wrote:
someone is going to bring up someone injuring themselves when falling out of bed whilst switching the alarm off for getting them up to go to work..... ;-)
Is that reportable under RIDDOR ? Victor?
Roundtuit  
#21 Posted : 15 August 2016 19:06:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Pretty sure we have had a "hotel" incident come up in one of the RIDDOR or Not posts (can't recall if it was slipped in shower or fell out of bed)i unfortunately too many hits when you search RIDDOR.
Roundtuit  
#22 Posted : 15 August 2016 19:06:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Pretty sure we have had a "hotel" incident come up in one of the RIDDOR or Not posts (can't recall if it was slipped in shower or fell out of bed)i unfortunately too many hits when you search RIDDOR.
Victor Meldrew  
#23 Posted : 15 August 2016 20:34:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Victor Meldrew

gerrysharpe wrote:
Victor Meldrew wrote:
AM1 wrote:
someone is going to bring up someone injuring themselves when falling out of bed whilst switching the alarm off for getting them up to go to work..... ;-)
Is that reportable under RIDDOR ? Victor?
I wouldn't bet against it Gerry. It just appears to me that we've reached a point in time where it's 'somebody' else's job to 'check things'. I have an Audi car for my sins, recalled today for the software update re: emissions issue. At the end, the service engineer said "we gave your car a quick health check whilst we did the work and your tyres, oil, water are fine". I said "I know, I check them myself regularly". You see that's the problem...... So many people actually don't bother to check, you know be proactive. They wait for 'it' to go wrong, breakdown or like chairs collapse etc. I've said it before many times and I'll say it again, it's only when people understand that they are largely responsible for their own safety that attitudes and behaviours will change. Ask people at training about their worst accident, taking out sports injuries & RTCs, usually they could have done something about it themselves to either prevent the accident altogether or minimise consequences..... A good ice breaker I found with some humour. Oh well - rant over.
Invictus  
#24 Posted : 16 August 2016 08:07:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Victor Meldrew wrote:
gerrysharpe wrote:
Victor Meldrew wrote:
AM1 wrote:
someone is going to bring up someone injuring themselves when falling out of bed whilst switching the alarm off for getting them up to go to work..... ;-)
Is that reportable under RIDDOR ? Victor?
I wouldn't bet against it Gerry. It just appears to me that we've reached a point in time where it's 'somebody' else's job to 'check things'. I have an Audi car for my sins, recalled today for the software update re: emissions issue. At the end, the service engineer said "we gave your car a quick health check whilst we did the work and your tyres, oil, water are fine". I said "I know, I check them myself regularly". You see that's the problem...... So many people actually don't bother to check, you know be proactive. They wait for 'it' to go wrong, breakdown or like chairs collapse etc. I've said it before many times and I'll say it again, it's only when people understand that they are largely responsible for their own safety that attitudes and behaviours will change. Ask people at training about their worst accident, taking out sports injuries & RTCs, usually they could have done something about it themselves to either prevent the accident altogether or minimise consequences..... A good ice breaker I found with some humour. Oh well - rant over.
Depends on background, I worked in a prison for over 10 years as the H&S bod. I was called to a cell one morning and the prisoner claimed he fell out of bed 'top bunk' leaning out to turn the telly over as he had no remote, he put his weight on the shelf and it gave way. We had to defend it, i.e. was he given a remote, was it normal practice, how many incidents had there been, what type of screws were used for the shelf, qualifications of the installer, risk assessment, information given to prisoners not to lean on the shelf, tool box talk for using the top bunk of a bed, training records for climbing in and out of the bed the amount of work it took to defend was incredible. Not cheap, we did defend it and won but it has become stupid what you need to show to prove due diligence.
RayRapp  
#25 Posted : 16 August 2016 08:29:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Well said Victor. The problem of people taking personal responsibility has been developing for some time due in part to the legislation and guidance, which focuses on the employer's actions and not enough individuals. This has been further promulgated by the Courts interpretation of legislation. We need to get back to basics. Perhaps restricting the use (misuse) of risk assessments might be the way forward.
thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
aud on 26/04/2021(UTC)
Invictus  
#26 Posted : 16 August 2016 08:37:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Victor don't disagree here is a posting on my from 'Sky Hook' Might not be popular with some professionals, 'Well I am sick of playing god, if people want to kill themselves let them. I look after the workforce were I work and will advise my kids, but everyone else can do what ever they want as long as they don't hurt me or mine. But good on the workforce for realising it is not the safest method of working'
firesafety101  
#27 Posted : 16 August 2016 10:49:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

How about tasking one of the employees the job of carrying out What If's. Doesn't have to be a full time post and would probably be the safety bod but taking time out to look for things that may never have happened yet and providing positive support to that person may save a few accidents from happening, although you will never know how many saved if the What Iffer is good at the job.
Invictus  
#28 Posted : 16 August 2016 11:04:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

What if's on every task? they would never get to the end of it! because everytime you thought you'd finished someone would just say ahh but what if!
Victor Meldrew  
#29 Posted : 17 August 2016 09:31:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Victor Meldrew

Invictus wrote:
Not cheap, we did defend it and won but it has become stupid what you need to show to prove due diligence.
Crazy times Invictus -like Walker said on the 'chairs' post, "I'm best out of it".
Victor Meldrew  
#30 Posted : 17 August 2016 09:39:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Victor Meldrew

RayRapp wrote:
Perhaps restricting the use (misuse) of risk assessments might be the way forward.
Well it would be a start Ray. My thoughts on personal responsibility come from the time I've worked with Clients/Companies where they've had a fatality, 76 in total and they ALL should still be alive and they ALL could have done something to prevent their own demise. So, so sad. Ironically the worst one for me was where the person actually survived, albeit paralysed from the neck downwards - the devastation for his workmates, family & young children haunt me to this day. For goodness sake folks - encourage 'ownership' PLEASE.
firesafety101  
#31 Posted : 17 August 2016 09:41:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Invictus wrote:
What if's on every task? they would never get to the end of it! because everytime you thought you'd finished someone would just say ahh but what if!
There you go Invictus, my idea about What iffing is poo pooed by you despite the possibility of accident/incident prevention
Invictus  
#32 Posted : 17 August 2016 09:49:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

What iffing is an onerous task is what I am saying and if you do this for every task you will never stop. There are however probably a lot of people who use this, I am just saying for simple tasks it is not for me and I don't think that you can sell safety using it.
Victor Meldrew  
#33 Posted : 17 August 2016 09:57:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Victor Meldrew

Invictus wrote:
Victor don't disagree here is a posting on my from 'Sky Hook' Might not be popular with some professionals, 'Well I am sick of playing god, if people want to kill themselves let them. I look after the workforce were I work and will advise my kids, but everyone else can do what ever they want as long as they don't hurt me or mine. But good on the workforce for realising it is not the safest method of working'
Can understand his/her stance - many a time I've felt like saying similar.
RayRapp  
#34 Posted : 17 August 2016 10:59:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

firesafety101 wrote:
Invictus wrote:
What if's on every task? they would never get to the end of it! because everytime you thought you'd finished someone would just say ahh but what if!
There you go Invictus, my idea about What iffing is poo pooed by you despite the possibility of accident/incident prevention
Sorry but must agree with Invictus. Going down the long and winding road of what, if, is not the answer. Despite rumours to the contrary we don't have a crystal ball, nor should we sit there all day trying to predict the unpredictable.
walker  
#35 Posted : 17 August 2016 11:44:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Many will remember the recent Kennedy v Cordia ice slip case One of the judges said: “In relation to some matters, care for health and safety is best left in the hands of the individual adult concerned. The relationship of employer and employee is not to be treated as being the equivalent to that of nursery teacher and pupil, or that of parent and child…”
Invictus  
#36 Posted : 17 August 2016 11:46:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

walker wrote:
Many will remember the recent Kennedy v Cordia ice slip case One of the judges said: “In relation to some matters, care for health and safety is best left in the hands of the individual adult concerned. The relationship of employer and employee is not to be treated as being the equivalent to that of nursery teacher and pupil, or that of parent and child…”
But the individual won.
Clark34486  
#37 Posted : 17 August 2016 11:55:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

'servants frolic?' probably not If the individual chose to use shanks' pony (bike) for their own convenience...... If you rang HSE they'd simply suggest you report it as a matter of course, me? I wouldn't
Invictus  
#38 Posted : 17 August 2016 11:57:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Clark34486 wrote:
'servants frolic?' probably not If the individual chose to use shanks' pony (bike) for their own convenience...... If you rang HSE they'd simply suggest you report it as a matter of course, me? I wouldn't
Shanks pony is your feet .
walker  
#39 Posted : 17 August 2016 11:59:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Invictus wrote:
walker wrote:
Many will remember the recent Kennedy v Cordia ice slip case One of the judges said: “In relation to some matters, care for health and safety is best left in the hands of the individual adult concerned. The relationship of employer and employee is not to be treated as being the equivalent to that of nursery teacher and pupil, or that of parent and child…”
But the individual won.
Yeah I know, but its still a nice quote. Had the case gone the other way it might have knocked all this stupidity on the head...hey ho!
Clark34486  
#40 Posted : 17 August 2016 12:01:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

Invictus wrote:
Clark34486 wrote:
'servants frolic?' probably not If the individual chose to use shanks' pony (bike) for their own convenience...... If you rang HSE they'd simply suggest you report it as a matter of course, me? I wouldn't
Shanks pony is your feet .
I know......slightly missed my point but nevermind
Ian Bell2  
#41 Posted : 17 August 2016 12:12:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

And its nonsense like this why I got out of occupational safety and moved into process safety.
Clark34486  
#42 Posted : 17 August 2016 12:27:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

Ian Bell2 wrote:
And its nonsense like this why I got out of occupational safety and moved into process safety.
Cloop
KDP  
#43 Posted : 17 August 2016 15:00:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KDP

Must a company travel policy and/or risk assessment also state: look left and right before crossing a road, use a pedestrian crossing, wait for the green man, wear sensible footwear, don’t attempt to alight a train/bus if the doors are closing, don’t walk over a grating if wearing stilettoes! Does it really need to say don’t carry a pushbike up a set of stairs?! Where does company liability stop and personal responsibility take over?!
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
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.