Three Southport postmen sacked for not wearing helmets

[DGP1]

At the end of the day it's RM issued PPE and as such is complusory so, whether you like it or not it must be worn (I personally don't like going around with a head like a baboons arse but those are the rules).

[pinstripe]

As has been said previously, RM are looking to reduce head count. If they can do it (for a change) legitimately, then we have nothing to complain about. If (and it's a big if) they followed all the procedures then the 3 posties haven't got a chance. Consistent non compliance with health and safety rules which have been in force - if not enforced- for over 6 years, doesn't look too good for your chances at a tribunal.
However as with most things at RM they will have rushed things and not followed any agreements. So it could go either way.

My main concern is that so many people continue to refuse to use PPE, eg. hi-vis, helmets, steel toe capped boots whatever. Yes it can be uncomfortable to wear, the benefits may be minimal, but at the end of the day, by not wearing it you are simply giving RM the excuse they are looking for, in their continued pursuit of lowering costs.
I personally don't like wearing the Hi-Vis vest as it gets too hot in the summer, I don't like RM footwear as it's deadly, but I wear both, every day I'm at work, simply because it has been issued to me and by not wearing it, I leave myself open to them. RM don't really need any excuse to dismiss staff, especially full timers, but when they get an opportunity like this, they're not going to turn it down. At times, it's really like turkeys voting for Christmas in this job.

As a final thought for all those who refuse to wear PPE, if you had an accident and RM had not provided you with it, would you claim compensation?

[dvbuk55]

At the end of the day it's RM issued PPE and as such is complusory so, whether you like it or not it must be worn (I personally don't like going around with a head like a baboons arse but those are the rules).

Can they see your head with the cycle helmet on?

[DGP1]

At the end of the day it's RM issued PPE and as such is complusory so, whether you like it or not it must be worn (I personally don't like going around with a head like a baboons arse but those are the rules).

Can they see your head with the cycle helmet on?

It depends on what helmet you're talking about

[brothermagrew]

Keep it clean lads

[helmet expert]

I have followed the topic of cycle helmets for many years, technical papers published, and understand the wide range of views on this issue. The first postman sacked was eventually awarded some compensation. The case for sacking a person for not wearing one is not sound and infringes human rights. I will try to assist any worker with problems. Initally the CWU could consider details I can supply and consider any new evidence before expressing their view.

POSTMAN EDIT: Please pm for contact phone number.

[helmet expert]

Currently the DfT is reviewing the helmet issue and I have been consulted. It does show there are concerns about the safety issue of helmets. In 1997 and 2008 the CTC (UK's national cycling organization) AGM raised questions about helmet safety issues. Contacting the CTC for advice is worthwhile as they have legal experts to assist and have made statements opposing forcing posties to wear helmets.

Health and Safety Executive’s view on the question. They wrote to me several years ago confirming that, far from having any Health and Safety obligation to impose helmet-rules on cyclists, such rules could potentially be a breach of employee’s human rights. I believe the CWU and Royal Mail Agreement of 2003 for cyclists to wear helmets did not result in changes to the H&S regulations and the regulations do not require cyclists to wear helmets. The 1998 Human Rights Act supports individual beliefs.

The Agreement, page 2, mentions a letter from Adrian Warren stating it is not the intention of RM to dismiss people for not wearing their helmet. RM and the CWU wished to work to ensure that wearing them is seen as a good safety standard. The basis of the agreement on helmets was based on this assumption and a number of web sites question this assumption, see

http://www.cyclehelmets.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .


The main problems are that helmet requirements discourage cycling, increase the accident rate and cannot provide protection from head rotational accelerations.

Erke and Elvik 2007 (ref 1) (Norway road safety researchers) state "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14%."

Clarke 2007 (ref 2) lists 2 possible advantages of helmets compared to 13 possible disadvantages of helmets or legislation. Of the 13 disadvantages, 11 could tend to increase the accident rate compared to 1 advantage tending to reduce the accident rate. On the balance of probabilities, it is therefore not surprising that the accident rate increases with helmet use.

Civil Liberties Australia recently published a 7 part assessment of Australia's helmet laws (ref 3). It was based on the level of cycling activity, fatalities, injuries, health, environmental, accident compensation and law enforcement. The outcome was negative on 6 counts, therefore helmet laws are not justified. It estimated about 600,000 Australians have been fined for not wearing a helmet.

The BMA concluded in 2008 (ref 4) that for fatal accidents, the force of impact in such instances is considered so significant that most protection would fail. There are several incidents of deaths to children due to strangulation by helmet straps. It is unsafe to assume helmets prevent fatalities as there is no real world strong evidence to support this.

The UK's National Children's Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review in 2005 (ref 5) stating "the case for helmets is far from sound", "the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported" and "the case has not yet been convincingly made for compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets."

The safest option for general cycling is not to promote helmets at all but to address safety issues in other ways, partially as per the Netherlands. A complete alternative approach to helmets can improve the health and safety of cyclists without the many disadvantages associated with helmet promotion and helmet legislation, both having substantial negative factors.

On helmet rotational testing aspects, the UK report by StClair and Chinn 2006, shows a peak value of 20642 rads/sec/sec from an impact speed of 8.5m/s onto a 15degree slope, Table 4.9 page 33, test no 7. The 20642 level could be fatal in practice according to previous research. In the Velo 2007 paper it shows impacts below 45degree on helmets can be near misses for a bare head. The Agreement between RM and the CWU is in question if reasonable doubts exist about helmets providing a good safety standard, Which the consumer magazine also reported about helmet shortcomings. Both RM and the CWU need to provide a proper balance of the available evidence to the workforce. The Agreement could be cancelled based on reasonable doubts existing and giving due regard to the Human Rights Act allowing for individual beliefs plus the Agreement did not intend for workers to be sacked. Parliament has not supported requests for cycle helmet laws, even for children. Adults working for RM should have the same rights to choose as other cyclists.

Discrimination may also be an issue to consider with many posties not wearing helmets.


References
1
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing pedestrian accidents and making them less severe, Olso June 2007.

2
Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007. http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3
Clarke CF, 'Mandatory can have unexpected consequences, Civil Liberties Australia, 25 Nov. 2008 http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/081125Bik ... Policy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4
British Medical Association, Promoting safe cycling, A briefing from the Board of Science, March 2008.

5
Gill T, Cycling and Children and Young People – A review, National Children's Bureau, 2005.

[lover]

pure gold helmet expert ,thanks