UK and Europe · Public discussion

Posties' new racing look

Started by Dave Kahn · · Last activity · 26 posts · 1,580 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
12 December 2003
Last activity
19 December 2003
Original author
Dave Kahn
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,580
Views / 30 days
7

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–26 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > It is now compulsory I think. A hard fought struggle by the union to ensure their members'
    > safety without actually checking whether it is safer or not.

    Er, almost but not quite,

    And there was me thinking that this would preced a correction of facts. Oh well.

    Quoted message said:

    from what I have read on this it seems more like a hard fought struggle by car-centric union
    officials who have (ab)used their power in order to impose polystyrene hats on cycling postmen,
    largely against their cycling members wishes.

    Colin
    --

    Hi there,

    I accept that it may be the case that the union officials who pushed this though may have had to
    fight for the necessary funding. They may even have acted in good faith, even if they were ill
    informed, and that there may well have been no desire to work against the greater good of cyclists.
    However, I think it is important to make it clear that, as far as I understand it, the pressure to
    have helmets provided was NOT coming from cycling postmen themselves.

    The stuff I came across, including union minutes and so on, certainly gave the impression that this
    was a case of officials with a very 'motorists eye view' of 'road safety' using their position to
    forward the cause of the pro helmet lobby.

    I wonder just how much consultation was undertaken with the cycling postmen themselves in order to
    allow the union to discover what the members wanted 'their' union to do? After all, if many postmen
    are not now wearing their helmets it seems they would have hardly asked for 'their' union to make
    their use compulsory under thread of dismissal! (And aren't unions supposed to represent the will of
    their members?).

    I wonder whether the membership were balloted? And how much effort did the union make to get a range
    of views and evidence on the issue? Are perchance, those who though this was a good idea just
    motorists with typical motorists views who also happened to be PO union officials? I understand that
    many cycling postmen tried to raise objections with their union about was was being done in their
    name but these voices of dissent were ignored.

    I also wonder how many 'pedestrian postmen' and 'driving postmen' have being killed or injured in
    recent years and what action does the union intends to take about reducing these casualties...

  2. ScrumpyJoe said:
    Howard said:
    Quoted message said:

    the Health & Safety At Work Act is a seriously powerful piece of legislation...



    <snipped>

    Quoted message said:

    Given that the basic tenent of HSE legislation is to reduced the source of danger, with the use
    of PPE ('Personal Protective Equipment'

    <snipped>

    Incorrect. The role of the HSE is not to reduce the source of danger. Some jobs are inherently
    dangerous and will remain forever so. The role of the HSE is ensure that the *risk* of injury
    from that danger is mitigated by proper control measures and PPE.

    Nope, Howard is right, though he hasn't phrased it in quite the conventional manner, and he's
    omitted a step.

    The fundamental tenet of protective measures in UK H&S legislation is the hierarchy of risk
    management. You _MUST_ (by law) eliminate those risks that it is reasonably practicable to do so -
    you MUST NOT simply provide PPE to mitigate the effects of those risks.

    For example, confined spaces - the law is quite explicit that you must first of all examine all
    possible ways of avoiding entry into confined spaces, and issuing some poor sod (speaking as a full-
    breathing apparatus confined space entry trained person) with breathing apparatus is the last
    resort. The same hierarchy - eliminate exposure, reduce at source and only as last resort use PPE is
    all through every recent piece of H&S legislation.

    Another example - HSE's current blitz in construction is falls from height, and they are not
    wandering round making sure people put on safety harnesses, they are hitting designers and planners
    and wanting to know why they are designing / sequencing schemes in such a way that someone is
    exposed to a situation where they need a safety harness. You can find a summary report on part of
    this on the HSE web site - they've called it the "designer initiative", I think (from memory).

    Anyway, this would actually be even better than Howard says - before imposing blanket 20mph speed
    limits, they'll be requiring drivers to prove it's absolutely necesasary that they drive, and that
    there isn't an entirely different approach that eliminates risks associated with driving a tonne (or
    40) of steel around the place.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  3. Dave Larrington said:
    Dave Kahn said:

    All the Twickenham posties are now in lids,

    AFAIK *ALL* posties nationwide are now in 'em.

    The one I overtook going up Harrow View this morning wasn't. Just a woolly hat.

    --
    Dave...

  4. Dave Kahn scribed with passion and wit:

    Quoted message said:
    Dave Larrington said:
    Dave Kahn said:

    All the Twickenham posties are now in lids,

    AFAIK *ALL* posties nationwide are now in 'em.

    The one I overtook going up Harrow View this morning wasn't. Just a woolly hat.

    --
    Dave...


    Maybe it was a clever mix of wool and kevlar :-)
    --
    Ian

    catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.uk

  5. Ian <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Dave Kahn scribed with passion and wit:

    Quoted message said:

    The one I overtook going up Harrow View this morning wasn't. Just a woolly hat.


    Maybe it was a clever mix of wool and kevlar :-)

    Two more unhelmeted postmen this morning: in Northolt this time. The first was a turbaned Seikh in
    Kensington Road. As the helmet compulsion is apparently a uniform issue rather than a health &
    safety one I imagine Seikhs will be exempt from the rule. The second was in Ealing Road: a
    caucasian, and simply riding with the hood of his jacket up. It looks as though the helmetisation
    has got as far as Twickenham but not yet reached Northolt or Harrow.

    --
    Dave...

  6. Dave Kahn said:

    Ian <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Dave Kahn scribed with passion and wit:

    Quoted message said:

    The one I overtook going up Harrow View this morning wasn't. Just a woolly hat.


    Maybe it was a clever mix of wool and kevlar :-)

    Two more unhelmeted postmen this morning: in Northolt this time. The first was a turbaned Seikh in
    Kensington Road.

    My postie was wearing shorts this morning. No helmet tho. I reckon at 2degC it must be too hot
    under one.

    John B

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.