My work wants to make hi viz mandatory. What's the Argument for/against

i don’t think anyone is arguing against this, the argument* is that cyclists shouldn’t be singled out for hi viz – or if they were trying to impose the rules outside of work.

They aren’t trying to impose rules outside of work – it’s within the employer’s mile square compound, and therefore part of the workplace. The OP hasn’t given any more info on what sort of site it is, but it seems likely that the cyclists are sharing the route with other vehicles – lorrys, forklifts, diggers, tippers, who knows??
Their site, their rules, etc.
Any discussion of making high-viz compulsory on the public highway or cyclist safety on the roads in general is irrelevant in this case – it’s on private property and if the landowner/employer wants cyclists to wear high-viz while travelling across their site then it’s their prerogative.

I say go for it, I still find it funny

I have seen Hyundai shipyard workers cycling alongside sections of ship, and Boeing use bikes, but the health and safety regime is huge and they are given specific training. So sorry but bluff, it’s not the same as the urban jungle.

My god is this still going..ffs!

I’d just don the high viz vest at the site entrance, there should be a risk assessment you can see though. Better to remove the risk by segregation before PPE but I wouldn’t make an issue of it.

epic troll. Well done op.

These would be a welcome addition to any environment but I think compulsory is a bit strong

Ive not read all five pages, but did the op answer if the hi viz is at work or at home/commute?

If its at work, someone does an RA for the task, says hi viz may help with safety. Work provides the safety equipment. Operatives trial it, then management review, report, make decision, which could be compulsory. If its on the commute, have they provided the bike (bike to work scheme?) Then strickly speaking they could provide rules for this also. Company car users may have to accept rules to drive by or loose the car, even out of hours. You may not be being paid, but its their property your thrashing around on/in. If not either of these, they could suggest you do this, as they do want you at work rather than hospital, but its then your choice, doubt its enforcable.

Trouble is, as a lot of places go over to permanent hi-viz, folk get used to only looking for hi-viz (& assuming everyone will be in it), & you’ve even more chance of being hit.

They aren’t trying to impose rules outside of work – it’s within the employer’s mile square compound, and therefore part of the workplace.

we know that now, we didn’t five pages back when this all started. OP wording was vague and could have meant several possibilities.

epic troll. Well done op.

after disappearing for a while OP has got back to us so quite possibly not a troll.

IanW – Member
My god is this still going..ffs!

My thoughts exactly!

“there should be a risk assessment you can see though. Better to remove the risk by segregation before PPE but I wouldn’t make an issue of it.
“

agree segregation may well be better – but your RA measures should not stop at that if theres still a risk …. which on our facility there is …

IanW – Member
My god is Viz still going..ffs!

My thoughts exactly!

Fixed it for me; issue 230?!?

I have seen Hyundai shipyard workers cycling alongside sections of ship, and Boeing use bikes, but the health and safety regime is huge and they are given specific training. So sorry but bluff, it’s not the same as the urban jungle.

Trouble is neither of those employers would appear to be working on an UK site and therefore not subject to 1974 H&SAW etc. Act.

Google and Samsung provide company bikes for people to cycle around their respective (gigantic) campuses. No hiviz for cycling on their sites that I’ve ever seen.

I suspect these two have a very good traffic management plan in place on campus that segregates pedestrians and cyclists from motorised traffic. If they can show this is how it works Hi-Vis would not be necessary once the risk assessment has been carried out and documented.

Trouble is neither of those employers would appear to be working on an UK site and therefore not subject to 1974 H&SAW etc. Act.

Sure enough, but your point has got absolutely nothing to so with anything we are discussing

and anyway….

Google and Samsung provide company bikes for people to cycle around their respective (gigantic) campuses. No hiviz for cycling on their sites that I’ve ever seen.

I suspect these two have a very good traffic management plan in place on campus that segregates pedestrians and cyclists from motorised traffic. If they can show this is how it works Hi-Vis would not be necessary once the risk assessment has been carried out and documented.

Google and Samsung…….not talking about the UK either 🙄

..if you slip into the back room, you’ll see them: 1,300 green, blue, red and yellow Google Bikes, stacked Santa’s workshop-style as far the eye can see.

This building is the nervous system for a remarkable campus-wide bike-sharing program that doubles as a mirror of the search giant’s corporate culture.

On any given day, you can find about 700 of the bikes scattered like toys across Google’s Mountain View campus. All morning long, Google’s private shuttle buses drop off employees in front of clumps of bikes. The Googlers mount up and ride to work. Jimenez and Mac are part of a seven-person army that keeps them up-and-running, seven days a week.

— http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/04/google-bikes/

And it’s sunny too. Gits!