http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/10/carbon-trust-dont-ride-bicycle.html
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Carbon Trust: Don't Ride a Bicycle"
(18 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Amusing. A pleasant response might be
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/10/youre-safer-on-bicycle-than-on-sofa.html
Posted 13 years ago # -
So why don't the Carbon Trust offer the cycle training they see as so absolutely necessary in order to ride? And do they carry out a risk assessment on every bus journey/train journey/car journey???
Posted 13 years ago # -
The first "article" was clearly written by an HR drone from a health and safety point of view.
During work time all activities have to be covered by a risk assessment, i expect for drivers the companies legal obligations are covered by the MOT but since there is no easy way to prove your bike is road worthy the safe position for a company is to say you can't use it. Not saying this is right just that it is, between our over sensitive Health and Safety and our growing litigation culture companies are forced to cover their arses.
Posted 13 years ago # -
What does anyone expect. It's a quasi-quango (is quasi^2 possible?) headed by some suits, with a mission to waste money on pie-in-the-sky, jump-on-the-bandwagon schemes to "make it look like we're doing something". It doesn't actually give a hoot about the environment or quality of life.
/rant
Posted 13 years ago # -
I still reckon any competent H&S Risk Assessment would come up with adequate mitigations of risk (such as offering cycle training, guidance on routes and so on) that would make cycling for work remain a possibility.
I'm H&S Officer here for my sins, and the guidance from the HSE is generally sensible and pragmatic - whereas over-reactions from organisations (the things that hit the papers and get people claiming it's 'H&S gone mad!') are just that, over-reactions without considering things properly.
You're right about the MOT covering the safety of the vehicle, and there definitely is no way to assess the suitability of someone's bike, but do they check the MOTs of the cars? It's a question that needs to be answered, have they carried out risk assessments for alternative modes of travel (including walking). A positive or a negative answer really shows up badly here.
If they do risk assess everything else then why is cycling really that different, because a risk assessment is a REALLY easy thing to do; or
If they don't risk assess anything else then why is that merely being reserved for bikes?
Interesting BikeBiz article points out two of the heid honchos are high up in BP and Shell. I never knew that (we've got people here who work with the CT).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Exactly. I am rewriting the risk assessment forms at the moment, all you need to do is work out where the danger is and how to mitigate it. Strangely enough we are all still alive.
I reckon Kaputnik has hit the nail on the head here although he missed out the free "business" trips abroad.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Interesting BikeBiz article points out two of the heid honchos are high up in BP and Shell
From the People's Oracle, Wikipedia;The current Chief Executive is Tom Delay, who came to the trust after a career with energy company Shell and management consultancies McKinsey and A.T. Kearney.
The current Chairman is Sir Ian McAllister, who was also Chairman of Network Rail. Formerly chairman of Ford Motor Company UK, he held various industry positions, including becoming President of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
A fine pedigree for an company charged with reducing emissions.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Posted 13 years ago #
-
bizzare!
Posted 13 years ago # -
The Carbon Trust was quoted as saying, "That email was badly worded, what we actually meant was the exact opposite of what was in the email."
Posted 13 years ago # -
back pedalling?
Posted 13 years ago # -
but do they check the MOTs of the cars? It's a question that needs to be answered, have they carried out risk assessments for alternative modes of travel (including walking). A positive or a negative answer really shows up badly here.
From a legal point of view do they need to? That is surely the job of the Police and the DVLA no MOT failures should be on the road and certainly not for a commercial vehicle. I expect risk assements are not really necessary since road worthyness is a legal obligation of some one else.
The way i see all these "issues" is ensuring the ambulance chasers can go after any one but the company, the owner of the dodgy vehicle or local council for the dodgy paving slab you tripped on. These things don't need risk assessments becuase they are some one else's fault/obligation and most importantly some one elses public liability insurance.
Dead (cycling) employee on work time who else are you to blame if their brake cable snaps and they go under the wheels of lorry. The obvious answer is no one is to blame but our litigation culture doesn't seem to allow for an accident.
Any way, back pedal indeed.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I can see the point Steve, and damned well made if I may say so.
Just to play devil's advocate, while the test of roadworthiness of the vehicle is in someone else's hand, should the assessment of the employer include checking to see if the MOT is actually current for the vehicle? I'd personally say it was the responsibility of the cycling employee to make sure the bike is in safe working order, just the same as a driving employee with their car.
For some reason though our employment culture seems to think that the employer may be responsible for the state of the bike (if only!) and the employee for the car. A bit like those schools down south 'banning' kids from cycling to school, but not in the slightest bit worried about those in cars.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"should the assessment of the employer include checking to see if the MOT is actually current for the vehicle?"
Probably, but then a company could argue that the DVLA and the police have the legal responsibility to ensure that all cars on the road have a valid MOT and why repeat work after all we don't ask to see a valid MOT certificate when ever we board a bus.
Having said that I would go as far to say an MOT should not mitigate liability any way. Its only really valid to say "the last time this vehicle was looked at it was deemed to be in appropriate condition for the specified tests". Not "this vehicle is safe and will be for the next 12 months".
I think this is probably the reason why my wife's company has stopped giving mileage allowance for using your private car but insists the employee take a pool car (if they must drive)
Posted 13 years ago # -
It's because cyclists are funny outsiders who need to be protected from themselves. Perish the thought that they might actually want to go somewhere without body armour and a nuclear powerplant suit on!
Ironically as we know, the risk of serious injury is greater for pedestrians - so do you think somebody "forced" to walk instead of cycling by their employer would have a case against them for any injury they suffered as a ped?
Posted 13 years ago # -
so do you think somebody "forced" to walk instead of cycling by their employer would have a case against them for any injury they suffered as a ped?
In our shiny litigation culture if you could prove the injury was the companies fault then it wouldn't matter if they forced you to take a zorb you could probably claim.
Remember "where there is blame there is a claim" ;)
Woman slips in hall way sues, man trips on paving slab sues all walking all claimed.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Litigation culture.
£7,322 awarded to man injured in a game at Scouts nine years ago
That's why if a scout is injured a multi-page accident form must be filled out with three separate witness statements. This is then held on file. Probably forever.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
