CYCLE HELMETS AGAIN!

[barkingdog]

Advice regarding whether the wearing of cycle helmets at work is covered by any law or legislation?
l am aware that some people have been taken down the conduct code but can Royal Mail really insist on postmen wearing cycle helmets
if it is not compulsory for all cyclists to wear helmets while on a cycle?

[BELIAL]

Who gives a s**t, stick it on and agitate for a 12% pay rise.You may well look like a dick but at least you'll be paid like one as well

[johnsouthwales]

it's not under legislation for a member of the public who uses a cycle to wear one.

personally, i cannot see how a conduct code can be issued on something that is not required by law.

[Lounge Lizard]

it's not under legislation for a member of the public who uses a cycle to wear one.

personally, i cannot see how a conduct code can be issued on something that is not required by law.

It is required under Health and Safety a work law, you being required to take measures necessary to safeguard the health and safety of yourself and others. What you do in this respect when not at work is your own concern not RM's.

[Pat Ostman]

it's not under legislation for a member of the public who uses a cycle to wear one.

personally, i cannot see how a conduct code can be issued on something that is not required by law.

It is required under Health and Safety a work law, you being required to take measures necessary to safeguard the health and safety of yourself and others. What you do in this respect when not at work is your own concern not RM's.

Yes but Royal Mail are using it to sack people to get rid of numbers. They do not give two hoots about anyone. It's evident as it's proven Cycle Helmets are little more than a fad and really offer little, to no protection, in real high speed accidents.

How many people were taken down the conduct route 5 years ago for this?

If they really gave a s**t they would offer walking helmets as far more people are hit walking than cycling...

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Quoted post on this thread http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 18&t=17068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; lots of useful advice and might be worth contacting him to get advice.

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.

[johnsouthwales]

no other laws are higher than common law. that was the point i was meaning. as soon as wearing a helmet as a cyclist becomes law on the roads, whether the cyclist is a worker or general public and becomes mandatory, then other laws at work can follow suit.

at the moment, health and safery law is not higher than any other common laws.

for example, if it was not illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt (uk driving laws), would health and safety create their own law and issue a mandatory condition to wear a seat belt for workers? because that is what they are doing with the helmet issue.
if it is not an offence under road/motoring law in the uk not to wear a helmet. if a cyclist chooses to wear one, that is entirely by choice for the cyclists protection. it is not mandatory.

head protection are mandatory at places of employment - hard hats - building sites, engineering, manufacturing etc.. they are not mandatory to wear in areas that are not required to wear them.

it's a tricky grey area with the rm business. seems like they are enforcing something that is not quite enforceable, and until it becomes mandatory on road and traffic acts, then it can be enforced in workplaces. seems like rm are extending the head protection at work issue onto outside the workplace, as it is part of the work even though it is not inside the premises. there cannot be one law for employment and a totally different one for others.

it is correct also to point out that head protection should be issued on normal delivery if posties are having accidents and bumps when they are not involved in cycling duties. and rm sounds like if it is picking and choosing how it construes protection.
if a bump on the head occurs inside one venue of employment and goes unheeded in another, the safety enforcements are not workable.

[DGP1]

FFS why make it easy for RM to discipline you over something, just wear the f****** thing and stop making yourself a bigger target then necessary.

[crooner1981]

have to agree with johnsouthwales im afraid.

[DGP1]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... DG_4016683" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personal protective equipment

Your employer must provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to you free of charge. You must use this correctly, and follow the training and instruction you have been given.

In some jobs, failure to use PPE properly can be grounds for disciplinary action or even dismissal. However, you can refuse to wear PPE if it puts your safety at risk (eg PPE of the wrong size could put you at risk because of its poor fit). Ask your employer or the firm's safety representative for the right size (which must be provided free of charge).

Sikhs who wear turbans can legally refuse to wear head protection on religious grounds, but Sikhs who don't wear turbans must wear head protection.

Don't make it easy for them.

[k979aaa]

I am just waiting for a postman to come in and say these cycle helmets offer no protection!. And go out in a full face with visor motorcycle helmet!.

[brothermagrew]

have to agree with johnsouthwales im afraid.

Just as I have to agree with dgp.