Post Office lean on posties

in message <[email hidden]>, mb

(') said:

It's on the internet, so it must be true?

If it's on the Internet, you have to opportunity to examine it and
assess whether you believe it to be credible. If you choose not to do
so, whose problem is that?

Quoted message said:

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?

And our answering point is, perhaps there is a safety related reason for
the things you have to wear.

Which is what makes the posties different.

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

---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:44:41 +0100 someone who may be mb
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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

Doing it oneself by studying is what learning is all about.

Quoted message said:

It's on the internet, so it must be true?

The people behind the web site know rather more about the subject
than I do (and I suspect you do). In fact one is so eminent that he
has written *the* book on cycling.

Quoted message said:

My point is that sometimes people have to wear something they don't want
to during their work, nothing more nothing less.

Those who study the web site will see the flaw in this argument.
Indeed it has already been discussed in this thread.

--
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.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, mb

(') said:

It's on the internet, so it must be true?

If it's on the Internet, you have to opportunity to examine it and
assess whether you believe it to be credible. If you choose not to do
so, whose problem is that?

<sigh>
I did read some of the stuff. I thought it was pretty biased towards not
wearing helmets. Not that I'm actually in favour of wearing them myself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

And our answering point is, perhaps there is a safety related reason for
the things you have to wear.

I said "nothing more...."
Do you think wearing safety boots is going to help if 5 tons of steel fall
on me? My toes may be intact but they need the rest of the leg to work.
Same argument goes with any of it.
A motorcycle crash helmet won't help in a serious accident but
motorcyclists are forced to wear them.

I think the post office may be thinking of a certain level of protection?

Quoted message said:

Which is what makes the posties different.

Hmm.

--
Mike

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:03:45 +0000, JLB <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Whether or not the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) would be
enforced for such purposes is, it seems, questionable.

This is absolutely not covered by the HSWA, all use of vehicles on
public roads is exempt.

On the other hand, a lot of road safety campaigners have asked for
road vehicle use by employed people to be covered by HSWA, as the
crash rate for middle-aged male company car drivers is (mileage
adjusted) unusually high. So maybe the PO are going to take a lead
and apply the Act to all vehicle use by PO staff on public roads.

Oink, flap, oink, flap.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Following on from mb's message. . .

Quoted message said:

<sigh>
I did read some of the stuff. I thought it was pretty biased towards not
wearing helmets. Not that I'm actually in favour of wearing them myself.

(Except the dork on this thread who can't be bothered to take advantage
of all the people who have done the difficult bit for him) that's the
general conclusion most rational people arrive at. ie there are lots of
pro-helmet twaddle that has to be countered - and the /result/ is a
comprehensive shredding the pro-helmet arguments and so-called research.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:56:54 +0100, mb
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I did read some of the stuff. I thought it was pretty biased towards not
wearing helmets. Not that I'm actually in favour of wearing them myself.

You prefer the information to be biased in favour of wearing them,
even when it's known to be false? Like the spurious 85% figure quoted
by BeHIT?

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:40:00 +0000, JLB <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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'd be interested to see any incidence where the HSE have prosecuted
an employer for allowing an employee on company business in a company
car to kill or injure. For example, if an employee has a series of
motoring convictions and the employer fails to respond by disciplining
the employee or issuing them with a less powerful car.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Just zis Guy said:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:03:45 +0000, JLB <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Whether or not the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) would be
enforced for such purposes is, it seems, questionable.

This is absolutely not covered by the HSWA, all use of vehicles on
public roads is exempt.

Please quote the statute.

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

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:40:00 +0000, JLB <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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'd be interested to see any incidence where the HSE have prosecuted
an employer for allowing an employee on company business in a company
car to kill or injure. For example, if an employee has a series of
motoring convictions and the employer fails to respond by disciplining
the employee or issuing them with a less powerful car.

You are missing my point. Can you show thw HSWA does not apply?

That it is not applied is entirely different.

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

It would certainly be welcome if the management of risk as covered by
HSE regulations were applied to our roads. For one thing the use of PPE
would be regarded as a last resort to be employed only when methods of
risk reduction had already been employed. In fact the use of PPE as a
substitute for risk reduction is illegal. For example, workers cannot
simply be issued with chemical protection equipment in lieu of
preventing the escape of noxious chemicals. Similarly, the wearing of
polystyrene hats could only be considered when the risk at source had
already been reduced to a minimal level. For example, by reducing
vehicle speeds to non-fatal levels and so on.

It certainly seems that the HSE are getting more involved in the safety
of employees using vehicles at work. See;

http://www.hse.gov.uk/campaigns/workplacetransport/main.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/report.htm

in message <[email hidden]>, mb

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, mb

(') said:

It's on the internet, so it must be true?

If it's on the Internet, you have to opportunity to examine it and
assess whether you believe it to be credible. If you choose not to do
so, whose problem is that?

<sigh>
I did read some of the stuff. I thought it was pretty biased towards
not wearing helmets. Not that I'm actually in favour of wearing them
myself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

And our answering point is, perhaps there is a safety related reason
for the things you have to wear.

I said "nothing more...."
Do you think wearing safety boots is going to help if 5 tons of steel
fall on me? My toes may be intact but they need the rest of the leg to
work. Same argument goes with any of it.

The point is, on balance, steel toecaps prevent more injuries than they
cause. Looking at whole population data, as helmet wearing increases,
so does serious injury rate. Why, I don't pretend to know. But you
can't get away from the fact that by some mechanism, whether it's risk
compensation or increased rotational injuries or what, cycle helmets
cause slightly more serious injuries than they prevent.

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

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

JLB said:

You are missing my point. Can you show thw HSWA does not apply?

It is government policy that it should not be applied:
(quote from teh HSE)

"It has been Government policy for many years that the health and
safety enforcing authorities should not investigate at-work road
traffic incidents"

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

Quoted message said:

It certainly seems that the HSE are getting more involved in the
safety of employees using vehicles at work. See;

http://www.hse.gov.uk/campaigns/workplacetransport/main.htm

This one is irrelevant to teh discussion under way - it refers to use
of vehicles on private sites. No-one disputes that the HSE has a
remit to be involved in workers using machines within factories, this
just happens to be talking about self-propelled machines (largely,
this bit of HSE is concerned with fork-lift trucks). I don't think
they have ever done other than get involved in this.

Quoted message said:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/report.htm

This is more interesting. Quotes:

"The protection of workers and members of the public from traffic
risks to date has been mostly a matter for road traffic law, normally
enforced by the Police and the Courts. It has been Government policy
for many years that the health and safety enforcing authorities should
not investigate at-work road traffic incidents."

"Our key recommendation, therefore, is that employers should manage
the risks associated with at-work road journeys and other on-the-road
work activities within the framework they should have in place for
managing health and safety within their organisations. This could mean
that approaches set out in existing health and safety law (principally
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) & the Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (the Management
Regulations) would become relevant. We see no need for any new law."

"Recommendation 3. We recommend that there should be a more rigorous
application of existing health and safety at work law to on-the-road
work activities, including occupational driving."

Unfortunately, the report stops short (at least to my cursory
reading) of advocating applying teh normal hierarchy of risk-reduction
to at-work driving. It advocates risk-assessments and training, but
nothing more. Sadly, therefore, it seems unlikley that we'll see
companies in court being asked to justify letting employees drive
when they could have caught the bus instead.

There's no explicit explanation in teh report (again, I haven't read
it all in detail, so there _might_ be, but it doesn't jump out) of why
they haven't applied the full array. My cynical guess would be that
it just didn't occur to those writing teh report that it could be any
other way. Maybe it didn't occur to them that you can go to meetings
without a car (it would be interesting to know how the long list of
contributors got to teh meetings where they discussed it).

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

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/report.htm

This is more interesting. Quotes:

"The protection of workers and members of the public from traffic
risks to date has been mostly a matter for road traffic law, normally
enforced by the Police and the Courts. It has been Government policy
for many years that the health and safety enforcing authorities should
not investigate at-work road traffic incidents."

"Our key recommendation, therefore, is that employers should manage
the risks associated with at-work road journeys and other on-the-road
work activities within the framework they should have in place for
managing health and safety within their organisations. This could mean
that approaches set out in existing health and safety law (principally
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) & the Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (the Management
Regulations) would become relevant. We see no need for any new law."

"Recommendation 3. We recommend that there should be a more rigorous
application of existing health and safety at work law to on-the-road
work activities, including occupational driving."

Unfortunately, the report stops short (at least to my cursory
reading) of advocating applying teh normal hierarchy of risk-reduction
to at-work driving. It advocates risk-assessments and training, but
nothing more. Sadly, therefore, it seems unlikley that we'll see
companies in court being asked to justify letting employees drive
when they could have caught the bus instead.

There's no explicit explanation in teh report (again, I haven't read
it all in detail, so there _might_ be, but it doesn't jump out) of why
they haven't applied the full array. My cynical guess would be that
it just didn't occur to those writing teh report that it could be any
other way. Maybe it didn't occur to them that you can go to meetings
without a car (it would be interesting to know how the long list of
contributors got to teh meetings where they discussed it).

I think you are definitely misinterpreting what the report says about
enforcement. Citing HSWA and MHSWR is bog standard. The HSWA is the
enabling legislation. Every other bit of H&S law (with some possible
debate about European Directives in this area) only clarifies what HSWA
requires. For example, the risk assessment rules imposed by MHSWR are
just an explicit statement of what HSWA requires when it demands a
system of work that reduces risk ALARP. Most HSE Inspectors could do
almost all the enforcement they want with just HSWA. What you refer to
as the "normal hierarchy" of risk reduction is implied by HSWA and
effectively a requirement of MHSWR.

Once you have HSWA you get everything that comes with it (the "relevant
statutory provisions"😉 except any Regs that are specifically excluded
(such as the PPE Regs). Hence, there is no need for any additional
legislation. If the government wants HSWA applied to anyone on the road
for work purposes it only has to tell the H&S regulators to do it. It's
just a question of will.

You should however be careful what you wish for. For example the
imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible. That means getting off the
bike. Either walking or driving a car instead would be acceptable means
of complying with these particular Regulations.

(The CTC was informed about this while the consultation was going on. I
don't know what response the CTC made. Others who are very worried about
these Regulations include those whose business involves leisure
activities like mountain climbing and horse-riding. Those too will
involve "working at height". The whole mess arises from a cack-handed
scheme to implement a fairly sane European Directive aimed solely at the
construction industry. This has been transformed into all-embracing
Regulations for reasons that are not clear. It certainly appears to
contradict the HSC policy that when Directives are made into Regulations
there should not be any "gold-plating", i.e. the Regulations should not
extend the scope of the Directives.)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd192.htm

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

Ian Smith said:

JLB said:

You are missing my point. Can you show thw HSWA does not apply?

It is government policy that it should not be applied:
(quote from teh HSE)

"It has been Government policy for many years that the health and
safety enforcing authorities should not investigate at-work road
traffic incidents"

That was exactly my point. HSWA *does* apply, but it is not enforced.
Quite curious, really.

However, I was told earlier today that one PF in Scotland, despite
opposition or at least non-cooperation from various official quarters,
recently insisted on using HSWA to prosecute an employer after a goods
vehicle driver was killed by an inadequately secured load that crushed
the driver's cab after a collision.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB wrote:
For example the

Quoted message said:

imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible.

Wait - surely that means my employer should buy me a recumbent?!

8-)

R.

JLB said:

Ian Smith said:

Unfortunately, the report stops short (at least to my cursory
reading) of advocating applying teh normal hierarchy of risk-reduction
to at-work driving. It advocates risk-assessments and training, but
nothing more. Sadly, therefore, it seems unlikley that we'll see
companies in court being asked to justify letting employees drive
when they could have caught the bus instead.

I think you are definitely misinterpreting what the report says about
enforcement. Citing HSWA and MHSWR is bog standard.

Indeed, but I am not misrepresenting teh report. The report does not
set out a blow-by-blow sequence of how enforcement might be applied,
but it does give examples. In all of teh examples, it advocates no
more than risk assessment and consequent appropriate training.

That is, I'm not (and did not) suggest that more legislation would be
required. The report advocates applying HSW to driving, but stops
short of doing anything more than suggesting risk assessmnets and
training. Which is what I said above. Which is not misinterpreting
anything (so fas as I am aware). Perhaps you could say what I have
misinterpreted and where I did so?

Quoted message said:

almost all the enforcement they want with just HSWA. What you refer to
as the "normal hierarchy" of risk reduction is implied by HSWA and
effectively a requirement of MHSWR.

But strangely is not proposed as something to be applied to driving in
the report, even though the report does contain sections on how HSW
might be applied, and what employers might do, and that they could do
risk assessments and training (and, by implication, probably nothing
else).

Quoted message said:

Hence, there is no need for any additional legislation.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

Quoted message said:

You should however be careful what you wish for. For example the
imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible. That means getting off the
bike. Either walking or driving a car instead would be acceptable means
of complying with these particular Regulations.

Actually, no. My head is much higher when walking than when doing teh
vast majority of my riding.

Furthermore, it does not mean getting off the bike, if teh bike is key
to what is going on, any more than teh hierarchy requires that you
don't do any work if teh work you might otherwise have done might
constitute any sort of hazard.

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

Richard said:

JLB wrote:
For example the

Quoted message said:

imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working
at height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again)
is to eliminate the hazard if that's possible.

Wait - surely that means my employer should buy me a recumbent?!

Ummm... yes... Who said the law is an ass?

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

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:47:08 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

For example the
imminent Work at Height Regulations appear capable of being applied to
cyclists (i.e. a cyclist who is working would be regarded as working at
height). The first step in reducing risk (your "hierarchy" again) is to
eliminate the hazard if that's possible. That means getting off the
bike. Either walking or driving a car instead would be acceptable means
of complying with these particular Regulations.

But presumably not using a bus or a lorry.

--
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 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:07:53 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian
Smith <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

"It has been Government policy for many years that the health and
safety enforcing authorities should not investigate at-work road
traffic incidents"

One just has to look at the mess the so-called health and safety
bunch made of things when they took over the Railway Inspectorate,
all in the space of a few years. No other transport sector was
lumbered with this and the mess is being undone on the railways as
the Railway Inspectorate will shortly be moved out of the grasp of
their current masters. This will not be a moment too soon.

--
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.