Post Office lean on posties

dkahn400 said:

Mick, my postal delivery operative (cycling) tells me that the Post
Office are now leaning on the posties to sign an agreement to wear
their helmets while cycling. They have told him that he must sign and
will be in breach of Health and Safety regulations if he refuses, which
thus far he has. I believe this is a double outright lie by the PO.

Has anyone else heard of this move, or have any comment on it?

My local Postie has to wear it when riding between the office and his
round, but then doesnt have to wear while delivering for some reason.
Apparently they will be in trouble if they dont wear one.
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling in the North Midlands.

Cycle helmets are specifically excluded from HSE Health and safety
regulations. Posties can only be required to wear helmets on the basis
that these form a part of their uniform. Given that most posties around
my way drive like nutcases and dress like tramps I would have thought
there were more important issues for the Post Office to concern
themselves with...

In 2002 Colin Clarke, a member of the UK Cycle Helmets forum made
enquiries of the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of the CTC in
order to clarify the position of those 'required' to wear helmets when
using pool cycles or making 'business' cycle trips. The HSE replied:

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your report on the effect cycle helmets have on cycle
safety. Unfortunately HSE are able to offer you little help in this
area as we only have responsibility towards cyclists while they are
engaged in a work activity. These cyclists will represent a very small
number of the total. HSE has no remit with regards to workers cycling
to and from work. Furthermore cycle helmets used on the public highway
are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
at work regulations. This means that it would be very hard for an
employer to force an employee to wear a cycle helmet on health and
safety grounds, they will however be free to require employees to wear
cycle helmets as part of their uniform.

HSE has no remit to dictate the uniform policy of a company unless it
falls within the scope of PPE. Ultimately the wearing of cycle helmets
is a matter on individual choice, any stance to the contrary could
potentially be challenged on human rights
grounds. With regards to the use of cycle helmets on the public roads
by members of the public, this is a policy area that falls totally
within the remit of the Department for Transport.

Yours,
Jon Windeatt
Health & Safety Executive
Safety Policy Directorate
Workplace Transport & Special Hazards Section.

30 Sept 2002

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:57:10 +0000 someone who may be "A.Lee"
<alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

They have told him that he must sign and
will be in breach of Health and Safety regulations if he refuses, which
thus far he has. I believe this is a double outright lie by the PO.

Has anyone else heard of this move, or have any comment on it?

My local Postie has to wear it when riding between the office and his
round, but then doesnt have to wear while delivering for some reason.
Apparently they will be in trouble if they dont wear one.

I didn't see the original post. However for some background and
facts http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1061 is a good place to
start.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

dkahn400 said:

Mick, my postal delivery operative (cycling) tells me that the Post
Office are now leaning on the posties to sign an agreement to wear
their helmets while cycling. They have told him that he must sign and
will be in breach of Health and Safety regulations if he refuses, which
thus far he has. I believe this is a double outright lie by the PO.

News to me, but it's spurred me to write the letter I should have done
a year ago.

After the usual points, I've mentioned that I won't buy any of their
stamps until they change the policy. It's easy to get stamps for
postage from stamp dealers for around face value - maybe others would
like to do the same.

Colin McKenzie

dkahn400 said:

Mick, my postal delivery operative (cycling) tells me that the Post
Office are now leaning on the posties to sign an agreement to wear
their helmets while cycling.

8<

So what?
I have to wear safety boots and overalls as a minimum at work. Frequently,
I have to wear a hard hat and safety glasses, neither of which I like
wearing.
Come to think of it, I don't much like the boots and overalls...

Why should posties be treated differently?

--
Mike

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:48 +0100 someone who may be mb
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why should posties be treated differently?

Perhaps you could study the material at the web site I mentioned and
then get back to us.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

mb said:

dkahn400 said:

Mick, my postal delivery operative (cycling) tells me that the Post
Office are now leaning on the posties to sign an agreement to wear
their helmets while cycling.

8<

So what?
I have to wear safety boots and overalls as a minimum at work. Frequently,
I have to wear a hard hat and safety glasses, neither of which I like
wearing.
Come to think of it, I don't much like the boots and overalls...

Why should posties be treated differently?

If you are at a place of work, rather than on the road, the situation is
different and the law treats it differently. Does your employer tell you
to wear all that kit when you are on the road?

One difference between you and the Mick the postie is that your employer
is following the accepted interpretation of relevant law; the postie's
employer is making demands backed up by menaces based on imaginary law.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

in message <[email hidden]>, mb

(') said:

dkahn400 said:

Mick, my postal delivery operative (cycling) tells me that the Post
Office are now leaning on the posties to sign an agreement to wear
their helmets while cycling.

So what?
I have to wear safety boots and overalls as a minimum at work.
Frequently, I have to wear a hard hat and safety glasses, neither of
which I like wearing.

Why should posties be treated differently?

The safety boots are presumably because there's a danger of things
falling on or running over your feet. I've had a 40 tonne artic reverse
over my foot while directing it into a tight loading bay. I didn't
actually notice until I found I couldn't move my foot because there was
a bloody great wheel sitting on top of it. Total injury: nil. Now I
know that's an anecdote just like 'a helmet saved my life' is an
anecdote, but in real life it does seem that safety boots work. In real
life we know cycle helmets don't make any difference to KSI rates.

So posties are being treated differently. While you're being required to
use safety equipment which may actually make a difference, they're
being required to use 'safety' equipment which won't.

What would you say if they were being required to wear lucky rabbits
feet instead?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

The items of PPE you mention come under HSE regulations, cycle helmets
do not, not least because their effectiveness AS PPE is so limited.

If employers are in the right to require employees 'on business' to
wear polystyrene hats which are about as much use as a chocolate
firguard should the wearer be involved in a crash of genuinely
life-threatening severity why stop there? For example, why not require
those using motor vehicles whilst at work only to drive vehicles with
such proven secondary safety aids as airbags and a high ENCAP rating?
In fact why shouldn't insurance companies also reduce payouts to
injured drivers if they 'negligently' choose to drive a car with a low
ENCAP rating or without airbags and all the rest should some other
idiot drive into them and cause them injury, as they try to do with non
helmet wearing cyclists?

David Hansen said:

I didn't see the original post. However for some background and
facts http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1061 is a good place to
start.

Unfortunately that section of the site is not up to date: "Helmets will
be compulsory from October 2003," and, "The BMA, although supportive of
helmet promotion, has made clear its opposition to compulsion."

--
Dave...

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

The safety boots are presumably because there's a danger of things
falling on or running over your feet. I've had a 40 tonne artic reverse
over my foot while directing it into a tight loading bay. I didn't
actually notice until I found I couldn't move my foot because there was
a bloody great wheel sitting on top of it. Total injury: nil. Now I
know that's an anecdote just like 'a helmet saved my life' is an
anecdote, but in real life it does seem that safety boots work. In real
life we know cycle helmets don't make any difference to KSI rates.

Yebbut nobody expects boots to save more than feet. Liddites claim
helmets save more than scalps, which is where much of their 'logic'
fails, methinks.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:48 +0100 someone who may be mb
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why should posties be treated differently?

Perhaps you could study the material at the web site I mentioned and
then get back to us.

Perhaps you should wind your neck in. Why should I read pages full of
waffle?
Not a teacher by any chance, are you?

You miss my point.

--
Mike
FJ1200 (Porky Torquey)
GTS1000 (Fast Red)

findaddress said:

The items of PPE you mention come under HSE regulations, 8<

Well, they don't akshirley because I'm in Holland. Many of the places I
visit have their own rules, mainly concerning helmets or safety glasses
but they all carry out very similar work.
They just decide; "we'll have a policy of wearing safety helmets and/or
glasses because it must be safer than not wearing them".
ie. This is something they decide to do on their own, nobody forces them
to do it.

--
Mike

in message <[email hidden]>, mb

(') said:

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:48 +0100 someone who may be mb
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why should posties be treated differently?

Perhaps you could study the material at the web site I mentioned and
then get back to us.

Perhaps you should wind your neck in. Why should I read pages full of
waffle?
Not a teacher by any chance, are you?

You miss my point.

No, you miss the point. You're being required to use equipment which
might protect you from serious injury in an accident. The posties are
being required to use equipment which isn't designed to do that, and
has been proven not to do that.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

David Martin wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

HSE regulations (HSAW Act) do not apply to transport on roads

[snip]

I'd be interested to see you show that the Health and Safety at Work
etc. Act 1974 does not apply to transport on roads when those involved
are employees carrying out work. I entirely agree that commuting is
irrelevant.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

On 25 Feb 2005 02:21:45 -0800 someone who may be "dkahn400"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't see the original post. However for some background and
facts http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1061 is a good place to
start.

Unfortunately that section of the site is not up to date:

That is correct. Which is why I said that it provided background.
Most of the facts remain the same.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:31:00 +0100 someone who may be mb
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why should I read pages full of waffle?

To educate yourself on the subject. This is of course entirely
optional, if you don't want to learn then it is an opportunity you
can ignore.

Quoted message said:

You miss my point.

Incorrect. Your "point" is answered by reading the information you
chose not to.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:40:00 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

HSE regulations (HSAW Act) do not apply to transport on roads

I'd be interested to see you show that the Health and Safety at Work
etc. Act 1974 does not apply to transport on roads when those involved
are employees carrying out work.

The point might have been expressed as it is on
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1061

"Although employers have general duties under section 2 of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) to ensure the health
and safety of employees while cycling at work, where more specific
laws, such as the Road Traffic Acts, provide the national safety
rules for a particular situation (e.g. cycling on the roads), HSE
considers that compliance with that law is, in general, sufficient
to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements of the HWSA."

When employers start forcing employees to wear car helmets (in
absolute and relative terms more useful in safety terms) then it
will be time to consider cycle helmets.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:31:00 +0100 someone who may be mb
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Why should I read pages full of waffle?

To educate yourself on the subject. This is of course entirely
optional, if you don't want to learn then it is an opportunity you
can ignore.

If that is your definition of learning, I'm surprised you know anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You miss my point.

Incorrect. Your "point" is answered by reading the information you
chose not to.

It's on the internet, so it must be true? Do you actually have an opinion
of your own, or can you only post URLs which people *must* read?
My point is that sometimes people have to wear something they don't want
to during their work, nothing more nothing less. Is that covered in your
wonderful website?

--
Mike