Many even risk averse big organisations do not have a mandatory helmets on business policy. Edinburgh council for one does not. NHS lothian for another.
Is this the argument that removing seat belts and air bags from cars, and sticking a steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel would make people drive more carefully?
It would certainly reduce cyclist and pedestrian deaths. Who cares about car drivers 😉
Is this the argument that removing seat belts and air bags from cars, and sticking a steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel would make people drive more carefully?
It's probably more like the argument of not requiring vehicle occupants to wear helmets (which would arguably save more lives).
Unlike cycle helmets, seat belts and air bags are actually very effective.
I don’t know of many industries where that is the norm.
Like I said, bouncers could definitely benefit from PPE but if someone turned up for their shift wearing a helmet and body armour I'd assume they wouldn't be allowed to work.
Presumably Pedalme have some form of insurance against getting sued by their employees so I would assume they've managed to convince at least one insurance company that they have done a decent risk assessment.
I hate myself for agreeing with TJ but the evidence for cycle helmets is very inconclusive and I'm not sure making them mandatory would provide any benefit at a societal level.
I do know at an individual level that I've been grateful I was wearing one on 4 occasions now.
PPE might be a last resort, but it’s one of the first mitigations you put on a risk assessment (often before training), and they’ve ruled it out in their terms of employment it seems.
If it's the first then you are doing it wrong. It's not really debateable.
Presumably Pedalme have some form of insurance against getting sued by their employees so I would assume they’ve managed to convince at least one insurance company that they have done a decent risk assessment.
Employers liability will cover it and there are brokers adept in placing the risk. PedalMe couldn't lawfully operate without it.
@cookeaa You might want to consider getting some training on risk management if that's your default approach. It will bite your employer and possibly you very hard in the future. You really don't want a day in court with an Inspector as they require you to prove that your approach is as good as or better than the ACOP for the regulations breached.
If it’s the first then you are doing it wrong. It’s not really debateable.
Absolutely this. Also risk compensation would likely fall under the category of Human Factors which is something that the HSE are getting more and more interested in …
I think you are all arguing about the wrong thing here. It’s not that wearing helmets is useful or not, it’s that they are specifically saying that you cannot wear one while working for them. I would think that’s a very sketchy thing to specify.
it’s that they are specifically saying that you cannot wear one while working for them. I would think that’s a very sketchy thing to specify.
What they are saying, is that the protection offered by a helmet is less than the hazards from "risk compensation" when wearing one.
There is some evidence for this.
I wear a helmet 80% of the time.
I think you are all arguing about the wrong thing here
Not really. Bouncers couldn't turn up to work the door wearing a helmet if the employer didn't want them to. Police in Scotland can't decide they want to wear a helmet. Both these jobs have far more of a genuine need for some form of head protection.
Pedalme have managed to convince their insurance provider that their employees shouldn't wear helmets so I don't see what the issue is.
It's instructive to read the rest of the replies to the initial tweet from Pedal Me. regards their tracking of rider behaviour, ongoing risk assessments, training and recording of injuries.
Regarding "contributory negligence" if not wearing a helmet in an accident that was another person's fault, negligence implies a lack of care. It would be difficult to demonstrate negligence in the presence of a seriously approached risk assessment that made the case for not wearing one. Provided the assessor had a genuine belief that the RA was correct, it would be evidence against negligence even if the court disagreed with the conclusions of the RA.
Provided the assessor had a genuine belief that the RA was correct,
I am not entirely sure of that. Wouldn't the RA have had to have been an objectively carefully carried out one?
OK I wasn't talking about the hierarchy of mitigations, but yes - point scored.
In the grand old game of "ERICPD" PPE is towards the bottom end of the scale.
I was just stating the simple fact that PPE is almost always listed as a mitigation on a Risk assessment, certainly where specific PPE already exists for the types of tasks/risks under consideration (You know, like bicycle helmets, for riding bicycles).
To truly 'Eliminate' the various risks would probably mean closing the business or diverging substantially from it's core purpose and putting all their staff in vans (perhaps not).
PedalMe can't reasonably go round central London erecting extra barriers and crash pads, fitting additional signage, removing potentially dangerous street furniture or providing additional training to Cabbies and white van men with anger management issues. So the 'Reduce, Isolate, Control' mitigations available are somewhat limited. Interestingly the "discourage risk taking" justification for not allowing PPE perhaps falls under the 'Discipline' heading, but if we're being strict adherents to a hierarchy of mitigations, is that trade-off perhaps the wrong way round?
It's a bit like encouraging Truck drivers not to fall asleep when driving by fitting a spike to the centre of the wheel rather than a tachograph and mandating breaks every 4.5hrs (OK not quite).
Trying to encourage better discipline by removing other mitigations, and potentially increasing consequences is going to be a hard justification to sell to a regulator or authorising body.
You certainly wouldn't omit PPE completely from a risk assessment, and if you did discount it I think the HSE (or whoever) would expect that justification to be detailed, as it is potentially the lynch pin of a future defence. Is that really an unreasonable statement?
Anyway my point still stands, an employer has precluded the use of an item of (task specific) PPE in their staff's employment terms, which just seems a little early in the process to remove a choice from your employees and probably exposes the business to greater liabilities. A policy of non-compulsion would have been easier to justify/defend and wouldn't impinge on employee's rights to choose not to wear a lid.
One of the things that can be pulled out of the data is that helmeted riders crash more often. Why this is is still very much up for debate. Thus if you want to reduce the number of crashes banning helmets can be a reasonable H&S step. Of course this is a massive oversimplification but the data is there to back up their position.
I've been cycling and cycle commuting for around 40 years now, and in the early eighties never wore a helmet (mainly as they were made of leather strips and were useless😂). Fast forward to the late 90's and I always wore a helmet both on club rides and commutes, until the summer of 2018 when I got fed up with it in the hot weather and ditched it for the commute. Since then I've noticed that I've had a lot fewer close passes and aggressive moves by drivers, I've had a few collisions with cars over the years before this but since 2018 riding in London has been fairly relaxed for me.
This may not be the effect of not wearing a lid, but I noticed it within days of not using it.
It could be I'm riding safer as I feel more vulnerable, but I don't think I am. I think that maybe I'm seen as a bit of a crazy mf for not wearing one and they give me a wide berth, or it could be that drivers are simply more used to cyclist's on the roads in town. Another reason could also be that the city is so congested now that traffic speeds have lowered and reduced the risk of a collision?
I think PedalMe may have a valid point.
Out in the sticks where I live now is a different matter though, everyone drives like the Daily M**l produced their own highway code 🙄
I think helmet compulsion often creates toxic discussions that focus on victim blaming not the route cause* of cycling safety. I also think that helmet compulsion probably does put many people off riding (it’s less convenient, makes riding seem dangerous). And we all know that more cyclists on the roads is good for our individual safety. So actually I’m all for this - normalising riding is a good thing. I’m not sure I’d like to be one of their employees, or their legal team in the event of an accident, but it seems to me like pedalme are (inadvertently) doing us all a favour.
*Yep, I’m going for a Highway planning pun.
Since then I’ve noticed that I’ve had a lot fewer close passes and aggressive moves by drivers, I’ve had a few collisions with cars over the years before this but since 2018 riding in London has been fairly relaxed for me.
This is also my experience even though I have the full lycra going on for my comfort and the distress of others
To truly ‘Eliminate’ the various risks would probably mean closing the business or diverging substantially from it’s core purpose and putting all their staff in vans (perhaps not).
Not so. See how steel frames are now erected with MEWPS since the WAH regulations came in? That was a major cost saving for the employer. Buildings went up faster than the old system, insurance costs fell due to reduced risk and payouts. A net win.
Would risk compensation revert to a norm? I habitually wear a helmet. I would off-road anyway, on-road it just feels odd not to. If I started going bareheaded on-road, initially it would feel odd and I would probably compensate. But I am pretty sure that, once I got used to the feeling, my behaviour would drift back to what it had been with a helmet on. Whether it would completely revert, I don't know. And possibly the same the other way?
If I started going bareheaded on-road, initially it would feel odd and I would probably compensate. But I am pretty sure that, once I got used to the feeling, my behaviour would drift back to what it had been with a helmet on.
This is what happened with me, the normal style of riding came back fairly quickly.
When you see videos of people riding in the Netherlands there aren't a lot of helmets being worn except for sporty type rides, cycling in towns needs to be made normal and not something you need a load of PPE for.
If nothing else, it's getting a business no one had ever heard of a lot of free publicity. Coming up on all my cycle groups now
Since then I’ve noticed that I’ve had a lot fewer close passes and aggressive moves by drivers
It might be the irrational hate that a minority of drivers have for 'cyclists'. If you don't wear a helmet you're just a human on a bicycle and they no longer feel the need to close pass.
Provided the assessor had a genuine belief that the RA was correct,
I am not entirely sure of that. Wouldn’t the RA have had to have been an objectively carefully carried out one?
(The forum doesn't seem to do nested quotes any more). It's entirely possible for two people to do a careful objective assessment and reach different conclusions, particularly when most of the input data is subjective.
The reason I asked PedalMe the question in the first place was because I found it hard to believe they had come up with a compelling logical, scientific and defensible argument to [b]forbid[/b] their riders from wearing a helmet.
There have been all sorts of side-arguments where people think I'm advocating for compulsory helmet wearing, which I'm not, or that I think their riders should be compelled to wear helmets (this is a tougher call, but at least allowing personal choice is reasonable), my question was is there any justification to [b]banning[/b] a legitimate item of PPE.
And I'm still not convinced (not that this is all about me). There have been hand-wavey explanations involving "risk compensation", but it's a theory that didn't stand up to meta-analysis of 23 articles:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941
It might be the irrational hate that a minority of drivers have for ‘cyclists’. If you don’t wear a helmet you’re just a human on a bicycle and they no longer feel the need to close pass.
Yeah, I'd agree with this as well. I also seem to have had less 'shouty' comments and arguments since I've reverted back to being a human.
my question was is there any justification to banning a legitimate item of PPE.
As others have said, it would depend on the degree of risk?
My employers (London Underground) would probably frown on station staff turning up in a flak jacket and helmet even though at some stations you'd feel like wearing them, and if drivers wore full ice hockey goalkeepers kit in case they fell out of the cab that would be banned. It's risk vs company image. I asked the question if someone was drinking alcohol free beer at work would they get in trouble, as alcohol is banned (we get randomly tested) they said yes as it would be presenting a negative image to customers.
Some advert for Pedal Me appeared on my insta.....
I commented on their policy... Have a look.
You could join in if you're as bored as I am.
From their analysis, wearing helmets increases risks through risk compensation
How much risk compensation is there on a bakfiets? I mean come on, they’re hardly gnarpoons are they. A mask to hide the gurning as you haul Tarquin, Imelda and Douglas the Labrador up an incline would be a better bet to save your modesty.
No different to any other form of public transport.
What PPE do you wear on a bus or train? Nothing - there aren't even seatbelts.
In a taxi, you'd wear a seatbelt but I imagine you'd be pretty concerned if the driver was there in rally overalls and a helmet.
If you got on a commercial plane and the pilot had a flight suit and an ejection seat, you'd be getting off the plane fairly quickly!
Same with this - you won't be wearing any PPE if you book a bike taxi, why should the "driver"?
The aim is as per @spursn17 says above, it's public perception. The driver of the vehicle should not be more protected than the passengers partly for image and partly for the simple reason that self-preservation comes into it.
If I'm in an aircraft plunging towards the sea, I'd like the pilot to try everything possible to save the plane, not for them to just pull the ejection and get out of there!
This whole discussion is depressing. It serves two emphasize the poor cycling environment we have here and the lowly status of cyclists or people who are riding bikes.
Would the same debate happen in NL? Probably not.
I suspect that PedalMe have a non helmet rule to raise the whole issue as much as anything else.
I hope that we will look back at the whole finger pointing at not wearing a helmet thing as an absurd victim blaming exercise that was used to keep cyclist in their box and distract people from noticing the woeful transport policies in the UK.
It might be the irrational hate that a minority of drivers have for ‘cyclists’. If you don’t wear a helmet you’re just a human on a bicycle and they no longer feel the need to close pass.
I thought about this on my drive to work this morning. I definitely mentally judge cyclists on their likelyhood to do something stupid. By which I mean completely bonkers unpredictable move.
As a cyclist myself I can make this judgement based on things like their seat being the right height, does the bike vaguely fit them, are they in a sensible gear, is the rear tyre appropriately pressured, can they keep their core steady while moving thier legs, and so on.
If you arent a cyclist (and total engineering nerd) like me, you may be making this decision based on: reflective Gore jacket and helmet = good cyclist; bare head and jeans = unpredictable.
(of course I'll still be giving every one a safe space, but I do give the bad ones even more)
Some advert for Pedal Me appeared on my insta…..
I commented on their policy… Have a look.
You could join in if you’re as bored as I am.
Are you tschami?
If so, what a well thought out and structured argument you made. I'm sure your boycott threat will have them rethinking their entire policy in no time.
Did you post on here to try to get more people to jump on your one-man bandwagon?
Are you tschami?
If so, what a well thought out and structured argument you made. I’m sure your boycott threat will have them rethinking their entire policy in no time.
Did you post on here to try to get more people to jump on your one-man bandwagon?
Exactly. I have no idea why this gets people who never want to work for them so worked up about this. Every day you can see all kind of people working in unsafe ways if you look around you. Builders with rubbish PPE and no fall arrest systems, people working near water without lifejackets, people removing asbestos cement roofs from sheds without control measures, teachers told not to use facemasks when teaching 5 year olds because they are too young to be taught by a masked person. Do the helmet zealots jump up and down and try and intervene. No, they chose to harass a cargo bike company about a minor detail in their risk assessment. They may have got it wrong… but why get so worked up?
In the long run I guess this whole debate will do us all good though if it makes people focus on the problem just a little bit more.
