Risk assessment...

I work in construction projects on the railway and my employer, who are ordinarily very risk averse and safety minded, are currently on a total safety bender. This is all well and good and I applaud the intent but my fear is that it could turn into a bit of a witch-hunt to name and shame the unsafe and that in the rush to appear safer-than-thou, logic and fact are taking a bit of a beating.

I've just received a briefing that cycling or motorcycling for work travel (excluding the commute to your place of work) is no longer allowed and exceptions to this would require the submission of a "work activity safety assessment" and approval by several senior people.

The unofficial advice I was given was in order to get approval you must demonstrate that an activity is being done in the safest possible manner and as you could always drive, walk or get the train to site or other offices, you would not get it approved for cycling, so don't even try. Don't make waves was the message.

I don't tend to need to cycle for work but I have on occasion and quite frankly I'm fed up with being singled out as some sort of deranged psychopath with a death-wish for cycling in London WITHOUT A HELMET anyway. I quite fancy taking the wisdom behind this latest edict on. Can anyone help me with stats? @Oliver Schick perhaps? They'd need to be very specific to the type of journeys i'm suggesting. Let's start with travelling the short distance from my office in Waterloo station to another office I regularly visit in Tooley St, London Bridge. Let's say, during a working weekday. I'd like to find stats on a similar journey by private pedal cycle, by hire ("Boris") bike, by car, by tube and on foot.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

Ha. I reckon this is a job for @skydancer & co.

A couple of points:

(1) Formal risk assessments are fine. It may seem a bit over the top, but ultimately what you want written into them is that the vanishingly small risk inherent in cycling has been considered and mitigating measures have been adopted. I did that years ago when I was cycling between sites at work and our H&S rep got cold feet over it. She wanted me to wear a helmet, and we drew up a personalised risk assessment that for reasons a, b, c, etc. the risks had been considered. I ended up not wearing a helmet on the back of a risk assessment that basically cleared me to do this.

So ...

I've just received a briefing that cycling or motorcycling for work travel (excluding the commute to your place of work) is no longer allowed and exceptions to this would require the submission of a "work activity safety assessment" and approval by several senior people.

Ask, therefore, to see the risk assessment on which this would have to be based. They either have one and it's total nonsense, or they don't have one, in which case they don't have a leg to stand on. Work with them on producing a sensible risk assessment.

(People often think that H&S is really restrictive and prohibitive, but it should be that only where an activity does not allow for adequate mitigation. It's actually a perfectly reasonable activity worth engaging with, especially in the construction industry, where on-site there are obviously considerable risks. It sounds as if they are applying it unreasonably and may just need some instruction in methods to use. Needless to say, the Health & Safety Executive has guidance (which people often don't follow).)

(2) It is also entirely possible that this arises from a talk with their insurers, who always try to get conditions like this written into agreements. Such clauses can be challenged, too.

(3) I wouldn't get too distracted by stats. If you want to do some reading, start with http://cyclehelmets.org and http://john-adams.co.uk.

(4) The most important thing is to start to influence your organisation's culture. I @-ed David above because it would be a good thing to organise a cycle training programme for workers, not only HGV drivers but also others. There are points to be scored like CPD etc. CTUK has done loads of this stuff so can advise.

Good luck!

Your company is a bit late with that one. Certain employers in construction have been doing that for at least 8 years that I know.

My way of being obtuse was either taking the longest possible time to do the journeys, or the most expensive, requiring me to drive in to the congestion zone and parking which I charged the company, or black cab they take ages to hail.

You could get us into your work to run an evidence based safety seminar as part of London by bike programme funded by TfL. Helmets don't feature at all as a measure to stop crashes obv. This is fully backed by TfL and based on their crash data. Your employers need to fill in a short travel survey for this and other services such as skills training and bike servicing . Pm me for more info.

See you at a gig soon Elvers 😊

Good advice, thanks all. Actually one of the things I agreed to do for my annual appraisal was to organize some cycle training for people who commute by bike. Who is best to talk to about arranging that? David?

Yup. I can arrange this. Email me david@cycletraining.co.uk

If you are drawn down the route of having to write up a full risk assessment, there are a couple of pointers that you should be mindful of.

1) Make sure you use a risk matrix. A lot of H&S assessments get hung up on the consequences of something happening without incorporating the likelihood of it happening. You seem to be on that with asking about statistics. Use the system of before and after matrixs. I.e, risk level before mitigation, risk level after mitigation measures are put in place, such as cycle training.

2) Don't just do a risk assessment based around cycling, do it around all forms of transport. This isn't just about whether you might get hurt while cycling but also about the impact of traffic systems and the consequences of mechanical failure/supplier failure on both you and your company. Use phrases like project stage delay, reputational damage, legislative non-compliance. This is an area where you can generally tend to game things and represent cycling as a favourable mode of transport.

This is all good but don't I need the stats? I want to show that cycling is no more dangerous than walking or driving.

Here's some stats:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb01-modal-comparisons

This one specifically (Passenger casualty rates by mode 2004-2013):-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244148/ras53001.xls

But these are probably the stats that they've looked at to single out cycling and motorcycling specifically.

I want to show that cycling is no more dangerous than walking or driving.

The problem with that statement is that it is more dangerous than walking or driving.

But the point you need to make/prove with the assessment is that even though the stats show that it is more than twice as dangerous than walking/driving, it still isn't so dangerous that it shouldn't be done.

3860 injuries per billion passenger kilometers or one injury per ~260,000km. Work out how much distance you'll typically cover using a bicycle for inter office travel per year (not commuting). 1000km a year? So you'll have, on average, one injury per 260 years you do this.

Then mention cycle training as a suitable mitigation for further reducing this already low risk, which would only make it safer than you likely having one injury, on average, per 260 years.

Being killed or seriously injured is obviously even far less likely to happen. At 1000km/year the KSI stats work out at, on average, once per 1.5 million years. Banning something for such a low risk is pointless.

It's also worth pointing out that by discouraging you from cycling for work, they also discourage you from cycling to work. This in itself is an increasing risk factor for the company. They're increasing the risk that, due to a diminished immune system you're more likely to take time off sick. However, unlike the amount of time that you might take off sick for a cycling related injury, periods of sickness are more likely to be a) persistent and repetitive and b) impact on your productivity during the times while you are at work.

That too can be described in the form of a risk assessment.

Also take a look at this:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/06/deaths-mortality-rates-cause-death-2011

If they are genuinely concerned about the risk to your health through cycling for work, they should also be proportionally concerned about things like your use of stairs while at work. The parallel response to this is that they ban the use of stairs while you're on the clock.

@-ed

I've often wondered what is the correct way of writing this?

It's also worth pointing out that by discouraging you from cycling for work, they also discourage you from cycling to work.

I don't see how/why.

Because if you're expected to travel between work sites by car, it's unlikely that you'll leave your private vehicle at work while you cycle commute. You might do it occasionally but even for the dedicated cyclist, part of owning a car is having it available to you when you need it in your own time.

Apone
Good advice, thanks all. Actually one of the things I agreed to do for my annual appraisal was to organize some cycle training for people who commute by bike. Who is best to talk to about arranging that? David?

Reply

Which Borough is your work place in?

Ah, fair enough, hadn't considered that, but it's unlikely for someone who might occasionally want to go between Waterloo and London Bridge. A journey that no sane person would ever consider a car necessary for.

I'm sure we had a policy on use of cycles for work journeys but I can't find it anywhere.

I've often wondered what is the correct way of writing this?

There isn't one. Someone could take out the username -ed and then we'd have to find a different spelling. It just about works for the moment. :)

#dramaticforumcrises

Apone

Through a series of poor life choices i do this shit for a living. Though i do love carrying a clipboard round all day so not all bad. Currently in the rail sector for my sins so I feel your pain.

Im sure i could sort you out a convincing Risk Assessment.

Drop me a PM if you need.

LB

@apone

I work in the rail sector and I have come up against this issue as well, I've also had it in previous construction jobs.

Its slightly different as I'm a dirty contractor, but I asked to see the risk assessment for people who drive between the sites that I cycle between, I then just filled it in this for my cycling. They asked about insurance and I showed them my BC insurance and my company insurance and the problem went away.

A few staff who are permanent cycle between project sites across Southwark and Lewisham so I'll ask them what they have had to do too.

I still get treated like I'm insane for cycling about for work, but that may also be because I'm the 'Environmental support'....

Thanks for all the helpful replies peeps. Esp, @The_Seldom_Killer @Greenbank for the stats. Was out on site yesterday so missed them till just now. Cheers.

@Multi_Grooves , my office is in Lambeth I believe. I'm in Waterloo Station.

That's very kind of you chap. I'll get hold of the standard form and see what sort of things they want.

@Multi_Grooves , my office is in Lambeth I believe. I'm in Waterloo Station.

Yup, that's Lambeth. http://www.cycleconfident.com/sponsors/lambeth/

I had a free Level 2 (on road) training session through them as I work in Lambeth.