Anti-cycling focus and risk management

In recent discussions of how to improve road safety and increase cycling I’ve heard plenty of stupid suggestions from people in positions of power who really should know better. The Commons Transport Committee springs to mind (props to Chris Boardman for his excellent response). So I’m surprised that I haven’t seen the risk control hierarchy run out as an argument for investing in decent infrastructure, focussing on the source of risk and generally avoiding babbling on about helmets and hi-vis.

In short, it is the official HSE advice for dealing with hazards. Risk control should be attempted as follows (I’ve adapted it for cycling):

• Elimination: Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated. For example, reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road
  
• Substitution: Replace the material or process with a less hazardous one. For example, use vans instead of HGVs in cities
  
• Engineering controls: Use work equipment or other measures to prevent accidents where you cannot avoid having the hazard in the environment. For example, segregated cycle paths.
  
• Administrative controls: These are all about identifying and implementing the procedures you need to travel safely. For example, extra training for drivers and cyclists, enforcing bans on mobile phones while driving
  

• Personal protective clothes and equipment. For example, helmets and hi-vis.

  What’s most interesting is not these measures themselves, but the associated official advice on how they should be applied. For example,

Risks should be reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable level by taking preventative measures, in order of priority. The table below above sets out an ideal order to follow when planning to reduce risk from construction activities cycling. Consider the headings in the order shown, do not simply jump to the easiest control measure to implement.

...and from item #5...

Only after all the previous measures have been tried and found ineffective in controlling risks to a reasonably practicable level, must personal protective equipment (PPE) be used.
...and finally (rejigged for cycling)...

It is not necessary to implement every measure. For example, in the case of a fully boarded and guarded scaffold properly segregated bike lane, workers cyclists would not be expected to wear personal fall-arrest equipment helmets or hi-vis.

This is really unambiguous and has developed as the recognised best-practice for dealing with hazardous environments, and yet the vast majority of the talk, especially from politicians, skips clean over #1-3 and settles on #4 (training etc.) and #5 (helmets). I think it’s a straightforward indication of just how crap many authorities’ approach is to making cycling safer and more inviting that they are very clearly ignoring their own best-practice advice.

(obviously merge if this has been done, apologies for possibly the most boring thread title ever)

tl;dr: people in government ignoring government advice when it comes to cycling.

^ An excellent post.

I think that post could be expanded into a very effective 'open letter' to the cycling safety MP's via a newspaper / opinion page, to highlight just how much the government ignore it's own guidelines on how to plan safely.

Here are just three of the reasons why government is unlikely to do much for us:
**

1. Cycling goes against the spirit of the age**. It inevitably involves hard physical work and at least some immediate risk. ('immediate' that is: as opposed to the longer term risk of premature death through under exercising).

2. **Cycling tends towards economic contraction rather than economic growth. **Just consider the cost of a bike against the cost of a car, or a cycle path (even a really good one) against a motorway.

3. **Motoring organisations have far more lobbying power than cyclists. **By 'motoring organisations' I mean to include: motor manufacturers, road haulage contractors, roadbuilders and all those with a financial interest.

Sadly, some would interpret

Elimination: Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated.

as 'ban cycling on roads.'

Sadly, some would interpret [Elimination] as 'ban cycling on roads.'

That did occur to me (and made me a bit sad), but it does say "Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated." Cyclists are not the hazard.

Here are just three of the reasons why government is unlikely to do much for us:
**

1. Cycling goes against the spirit of the age**. It inevitably involves hard physical work and at least some immediate risk. ('immediate' that is: as opposed to the longer term risk of premature death through under exercising).
   
   

But cycling is green, local, sustainable, low-cost and very much emphasises the individual and their wellbeing, which seem fairly contemporary themes.

1. **Cycling tends towards economic contraction rather than economic growth. **Just consider the cost of a bike against the cost of a car, or a cycle path (even a really good one) against a motorway.
   Not entirely true, cycling increases revenue for local businesses.

2. **Motoring organisations have far more lobbying power than cyclists. **By 'motoring organisations' I mean to include: motor manufacturers, road haulage contractors, roadbuilders and all those with a financial interest.
   True, but that's because motoring is the norm and cycling is seen as a fringe activity even by those who do it occasionally. If the perception shifts so that everyone sees themselves as someone who just picks the most appropriate form of transport for each trip, that might change.

In recent discussions of how to improve road safety and increase cycling I’ve heard plenty of stupid suggestions from people in positions of power who really should know better. The Commons Transport Committee springs to mind (props to Chris Boardman for his excellent response). So I’m surprised that I haven’t seen the risk control hierarchy run out as an argument for investing in decent infrastructure, focussing on the source of risk and generally avoiding babbling on about helmets and hi-viz.

Well, quite. From a strict risk management perspective, the risk (cyclists being struck by a vehicle) is not actually addressed by the thing most often offered up in 'mitigation', helmet wearing.

While high visibility clothing might be a form of risk mitigation in some circumstances, as you correctly identify it's very much a last line of defence, and effectively an admission that the risk has not been controlled. Neither would hi viz do anything at all to address the one risk that is at least partly addressed by helmets (head injuries caused in otherwise low speed falls).

It's basically all a symptom of a refusal to actually consider the real nature of the problem.

I think that post could be expanded into a very effective 'open letter' to the cycling safety MP's via a newspaper / opinion page, to highlight just how much the government ignore it's own guidelines on how to plan safely.

Thanks. Like I said, I'm surprised that this isn't used more often as a way of making the point that Vanneau laid out very neatly above. If you have any suggestions of where it should be sent or anyone who has more coverage and might be interested in picking this idea up and running with it, let me know.

Another point worth making is that non-compliance with principles of adequate risk management is these days a criminal offence, at least as far as the construction industry is concerned. Contractors who cut corners can face jail.

Compare this with the penalties regularly handed out for failures in the equally responsible activity of piloting a one ton lump of metal around. ..

It did strike me that there might also be some application of the above penalties in the instance that inherently risky infrastructure is designed which subsequently leads cyclists into danger. CS2 has had the finger pointed at it recently.

I really like the premise of the OP, but I'm not sure it's entirely transferrable to cycling in its current form. The risk control hierarchy linked to is specific to the construction industry, and has been "[d]eveloped by the construction industry’s Leadership and Worker Engagement Forum".

Moving away from the advice specifically designed for the construction industry and looking to the generic advice on risk management, when one reaches the section on "Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions" there are a number of parallels with the OP:

• try a less risky option (eg switch to using a less hazardous chemical);
  
• prevent access to the hazard (eg by guarding);
  
• organise work to reduce exposure to the hazard (eg put barriers between pedestrians and traffic);
  
• issue personal protective equipment (eg clothing, footwear, goggles etc); and
  
• provide welfare facilities (eg first aid and washing facilities for removal of contamination).
  These actions don't entirely correspond with the OP (in terms of order of priority at least), but do strongly reinforce the argument that PPE/hi-viz etc. are very much a last resort when it comes to preventing incidents (the provision of welfare facilities treating the cause rather than the effect).
  

Cheers Landslide, that's useful information. The idea was sparked by recollection of an extremely basic, fairly generic office/lab health and safety talk. The link I used was just the first one on google for "risk control hierarchy" and seemed to tie in with what I remembered. I think the generic advice gives the same order of priority as the construction-specific one except that it doesn't include "elimination" and adds a level at the end, so

• Substitution: try a less risky option (eg switch to using a less hazardous chemical);
  
• Engineering controls:prevent access to the hazard (eg by guarding);
  
• Administration controls: organise work to reduce exposure to the hazard (eg put barriers between pedestrians and traffic);
  
• PPE: issue personal protective equipment (eg clothing, footwear, goggles etc); and
  
• Additional (after-the-fact?): provide welfare facilities (eg first aid and washing facilities for removal of contamination).
  
  

I don't know what the final level would be for cycling. Hospital?

The final level would in a sense be the legal remedies available after an incident.?

The final level would in a sense be the legal remedies available after an incident.?

Nice! I like that.

Edit: althooouuuuugh... strict liability might be an administrative control?

The final level would in a sense be the legal remedies available after an incident.?

Agreed,but I'm not sure if it is the first or the last line of defence. Assuming a driver is a psychopath, no conscience, only concerned with self interest the only thing stopping them from running you down is the belief they will bear the costs of it.

There is a moral hazard to driving, without the law the driver actually benefits from putting you at risk, whether by speeding, passing closely etc. They accrue the benefits but not the risk, like gambling with someone else's money and being allowed to keep any winnings.

This is why sentencing for road offences is an issue being pushed by campaigners.

I really like the premise of the OP, but I'm not sure it's entirely transferrable to cycling in its current form. The risk control hierarchy linked to is specific to the construction industry, and has been "[d]eveloped by the construction industry’s Leadership and Worker Engagement Forum".

Moving away from the advice specifically designed for the construction industry and looking to the generic advice on risk management, when one reaches the section on "Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions" there are a number of parallels with the OP:

[]try a less risky option (eg switch to using a less hazardous chemical);
[]prevent access to the hazard (eg by guarding);
[]organise work to reduce exposure to the hazard (eg put barriers between pedestrians and traffic);
[]issue personal protective equipment (eg clothing, footwear, goggles etc); and
[*]provide welfare facilities (eg first aid and washing facilities for removal of contamination).
These actions don't entirely correspond with the OP (in terms of order of priority at least), but do strongly reinforce the argument that PPE/hi-viz etc. are very much a last resort when it comes to preventing incidents (the provision of welfare facilities treating the cause rather than the effect).

Cycling Instructor Trainers use this HSE guidance to explain why cycle training's view on ppe is neutral. pro choice. though much of the road safety world like ppe still

cycle trainers often get asked why they dont wear a helmet to set an example to their trainees

Parkour and risk
So transferable to cycling, more relevant since few people parkour to work

So many of our modern-day activities are neutered of any real challenge; diluted, softened, reduced to a lowest common denominator. The cause of that process is, ultimately, fear – on a societal level. Fear of failure, fear of injury, fear of liability, but always fear. The irony, of course, is that by reducing risk and protecting ourselves from the associated fear, we produce a less capable and more fearful population. Our perception of risk is all wrong. The reality is that by engaging with risk on a regular basis and learning to engage with it and manage it, we massively reduce the less obvious but much greater risks that inevitably do end up causing all the damage: obesity, heart disease, postural problems, stress and all the related ailments of the modern industrialised world.