Southport postman sacked for not wearing his cycle helmet

[Geezer]

http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/south ... -24493388/

Aug 21 2009 by John Siddle, Southport Visiter

A SOUTHPORT postman sacked for not wearing his cycle helmet has lost his appeal.

The father-of-two, who does not wish to be named, was unsuccessful as he fought to be reinstated after mail chiefs spotted him not wearing compulsory headgear when he went on his daily rounds in May.

The man will now take his case to an industrial tribunal in a bid for compensation, as Southport MP John Pugh compared the Royal Mail’s tough stance to a repressive police state.

The Visiter has reported on several cases of postmen dismissed for contentious reasons - such as Peter Baker, who was sacked for leaving his van unlocked as he delivered a letter to a farmhouse on a single-lane track.

Dr Pugh said: “Our local postmen seem subjected to a regime that resembles an East European police state – snooped upon and disciplined for offences in an arbitrary fashion that is as unfair as it is cruel.

“I do not know what the national union make of this but it is time for them to get involved as something is going horribly wrong in Southport. "

Dr Pugh has written a letter to Royal Mail chief executive Adam Crozier demanding an explanation.

He writes: “I am wringing my hands in despair at the staff difficulties that surround my local Royal Mail branch and the people that work there.

“There has been an unusual sequence of staff disciplinary hearings and dismissals. Staff have been sacked for seeming trivialities such as not wearing their helmets on cycle paths and leaving keys in vans in isolated areas for very short periods.

Several Southport postmen have told the Visiter they will be protesting at the harsh treatment of their colleagues.

Dr Pugh has called for disciplinary statistics at the Wight Moss Way office to be released by Mr Crozier.

[norbert]

now that poor guy has to prove that RM did not act reasonably or consistently in a tribunal . He may have some chance if he can infer " coincidences " & " suspicious issues " countrywide and in Southport . RM will fight him to the last though .

[fmrPOSTIE]

Surely you cant get sacked for not wearing a helmet for a first offence? This was probably a recurring thing?

[poopongjockmcploop]

sounds harsh but wearing a helmet has been proven to limit injury. We complain about doing the job properly and he has been given proper ppe and refused to wear it. Would u work in an rdc with flipflops and then moan if u hurt your feet? Not an unreasonable thought.

[singingpostman]

It's completly unfair, I do not wear a helmet and neithier do 90% of the posties that I work with, we have had 3 different DOMs in the last 5 years and all of those are aware that helmets are not worn by us, but do not say anything, so why should this guy lose his job just because he has the misfortune to work in an office run by little Hitlers. Take em to a tribunual and explain how all across the country managers turn a blind eye to this practice.

And before all the namby pamby do gooders come on and tell me its my for my own good to wear a helmet, I'll deciede whats good for me.

Damn Health and Safety and Human rights have sodded this country up totally.

[coca cola]

if wearing a cycle helmet, is that good for you.... why is it not law to wear it in this country!! i hate wearing them!!

[Sol,e,dude]

Coca Cola, you're right, there isn't a law that makes it compulsory for cyclists to wear a safety helmet, but there should be! Royal Mail has a duty of care to the people that work for the company, care that is transcribed through it's H&S policy, a policy that is fully supported by the CWU.

What is the big deal over the wearing of helmets. They are issued for OUR protection. I wouldn't be of much use to my family in a hospital bed with a cracked scull, or worse, simply because I didn't like having to wear a piece of H&S kit.
I too have little time for the 'nanny state' but you know, some things make good sense; like having a smoke detector fitted in the home or not using a hair dryer while sat in the bath or not allowing little kids to play with matches.

As for Doms turning a blind eye when people decide to flout H&S rules, if proven he should be conducted in the same way others have.

You have too wonder why the office CWU rep has not raised the issue or taken the issue to the area safety rep.
I make no apology for my strength of feeling on this issue; no one should compromise on sensible H&S.

[lover]

sounds harsh but wearing a helmet has been proven to limit injury. We complain about doing the job properly and he has been given proper ppe and refused to wear it. Would u work in an rdc with flipflops and then moan if u hurt your feet? Not an unreasonable thought.

a helmet is proven to increase your risks of an accident .whats H&S RULE NUMBER ONE?

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... Policy.pdf

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.helmet expert
Offline

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 15:41,pm
Gender: Male
Private message

[brothermagrew]

Cycle helmet warning:

“The High Court in London (January 2009) has held that a cyclist who does not wear a helmet could have their compensation reduced in the event of an accident caused by the fault of another."

Robert Smith sustained serious head injuries when his bicycle collided with Michael Finch’s motorcycle. The High Court in London ruled that Mr Finch was entirely to blame for the collision because of his excessive speed and riding too close to Mr Smith as he tried to overtake. The Court then went on to consider whether or not he should have his compensation reduced because he was not wearing a cycle helmet.

In particular, the Court noted the guidance in the Highway Code that “You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations." In his judgment Mr Justice Griffith Williams stated “As it is excepted that the wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances, it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one, no matter whether on a long or a short trip or whether on quiet suburban roads or a busy main road."

It has been the law for many years that if a person’s injuries would have been avoided or have been less serious if they had worn a seatbelt that their compensation would be reduced by 15 to 25%. The Court has ruled that they will apply the same test to the wearing of cycle helmets. However, on the facts of Mr Smith’s case the Defendant was unable to satisfy the Judge that the serious head injuries that resulted would have been reduced by the wearing of a cycle helmet and therefore Mr Smith’s damages were not reduced. Each case must be carefully looked at on its own facts.

Not only is there recommendation in the Highway Code for cyclists to wear cycle helmets but the law now recognises that an injured claimant may have their damages reduced for failing to do so.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DGP1]

I've said it before but why would anyone want to make it easier for RM to discipline you, if they issue the PPE then wear it to avoid being a target.

[Wessex]

I wonder how many posties have been sacked recently for wearing trainers on delivery.

[Gene Hunt]

sounds harsh but wearing a helmet has been proven to limit injury. We complain about doing the job properly and he has been given proper ppe and refused to wear it. Would u work in an rdc with flipflops and then moan if u hurt your feet? Not an unreasonable thought.

This is very true .BUT the real issue is SAVING MONEY !!! The reason you have too wear these bloody hats is to keep RM personal Liability insurance costs down....TOSSERS

[singingpostman]

Coca Cola, you're right, there isn't a law that makes it compulsory for cyclists to wear a safety helmet, but there should be! Royal Mail has a duty of care to the people that work for the company, care that is transcribed through it's H&S policy, a policy that is fully supported by the CWU.

What is the big deal over the wearing of helmets. They are issued for OUR protection. I wouldn't be of much use to my family in a hospital bed with a cracked scull, or worse, simply because I didn't like having to wear a piece of H&S kit.
I too have little time for the 'nanny state' but you know, some things make good sense; like having a smoke detector fitted in the home or not using a hair dryer while sat in the bath or not allowing little kids to play with matches.

As for Doms turning a blind eye when people decide to flout H&S rules, if proven he should be conducted in the same way others have.

You have too wonder why the office CWU rep has not raised the issue or taken the issue to the area safety rep.
I make no apology for my strength of feeling on this issue; no one should compromise on sensible H&S.

I do'nt normally respond to those who disagree with me but on this occasion I will make an exception, yes thats fine having a strong feeling about wearing a helmet, thats ok with me, wear one, thats your choice, but why should I have to wear one ? its my "strong feeling" that I dont wish to. I cycle to work every day without one and then home again without one, so who is RM and the CWU (of which I am not a member any longer) to enforce a rule which is only there because of the compensation culture, a simple opt out form is all thats required and I would be quite happy to sign one.

[bexhil palace]

To be honest i wear my helmet under duress,if i had a choice i wouldn't wear one.
One question i would like answered ,if RM are so concerned for our H&S why do they allow
staff in our office to do 2/3 walks a day.
As iv'e highlighted to my Dom many times,no one can do that much work in a safe manner.
Would it be because if he stopped the practise, he would be left with at least 6 walks uncovered,and so his bonus may dissapear? Just a thought.

[Gene Hunt]

I worked with postie who was" Hung out to dry" I went to see him and find out what happend at his appeal.I read his notes and was utterley shocked to read that the RM manager 'who i can't name, because i may be the next one singled out for termination !!!! Had lied in his account of what happened that morning.He had said that he saw mr ???? on his bike without his helmet cycling up a one way street !!! Boll@:?ks !!! How a RM manager can give a false statement and fabricate the truth is a F'n discrace..His statement was as fake as a trannies fanny !!! But the indepedent appeals officer,who is a RM manager !! How can this be independent ?? Surley,all RM managers are told to save money and cut staffing levels at ANY cost ?? So mr ?? had no chance did he ? Besides, the manager now drives a brand new Audi A5...Bit of a leap up the car ladder from a ford focus !!!!!!