cycling will not be permitted on site

sebastianlieken

We recieved a "Safety Hazard Alert" bullitin which is revoking all cyclists privelages on site. (find attached... I couldn't attach hosted image, sorry)

All of us cyclists at my place of work now have to leave our bicycles at an alternative bike rack at the main gate and walk the rest of the way to our office. a walk of half a kilometer. We used to be allowed to use the roads like everyone else, and lock our bike in a purpose built bike room at the office) Do you think this is fair? it seems to me that cyclists are being discriminated against here. Cars can still use the road system on site, as can motorcyclists, etc. but not cyclists. (note, there have been no incedents to provoke this - somebody high up just has a vendetta against cyclists)

Lumen

Ignore it. What are they going to do, push you off your bike?

Lusk Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

Ignore it. What are they going to do, push you off your bike?

Presumably one has to pass through a security gate to gain access to the site? Hide behind a car and ghost in!

sebastianlieken

seemingly security will be telling us to dismount at the gate and become a pedestrian.

And if I do ghost in and cycle to the usual bicycle shed which is beside the office, I cycle through the managers car park (courtyard in front of office building). I know of a few anti-cyclist managers who would love to report me.

DirkVoodoo

Genius. Absolve vehicles of responsibility by removing bikes from the equation. Does this mean hand-brake turns and donuts in the car park are allowed because all "hazards" have been removed?

And sure if you accidentally mount the path doing this, they will probably make people wear high-viz and hard hats when walking to the office.

Beasty

What's fairness got to do with it? If your employer or whoever owns the property has taken a decision to impose such restrictions (I presume these are not public roads we are talking about), that's their prerogative. This is a matter between you and them, and both parties are in possession of more information (certainly more than anyone you're seeking comments from here) which allow you to assess any perceived risks which this "ruling" is presumably targetted at.

kenmc

Time for a new job. And be sure to say exactly why in the exit interview.

Oh, and until you resign, you should also turn up late every single day, citing traffic as the problem, and how it never used to be an issue when you were allowed to cycle to work. You can also call in sick more often too, and then there's the stress associated with driving to and from work.

paulgalway

Ask to see what evidence or research has been done to show that cyclists are increasing the risk of accidents happening.

How many on cycles have hit cars? in most cases it is the other way round.

Why are cars not being asked to stop at the gate also?

Unless company policys and procedures have been changed, they cannot enforce this.

Wishbone Ash

sebastianlieken wrote: »

Do you think this is fair?

You're preaching to the converted here. It may make you feel better but won't be very effective. Much better to address your concerns to you employer. Their insurance company may have imposed the restriction.

NeedMoreGears

Lumen wrote: »

Ignore it. What are they going to do, push you off your bike?

Fire you for ignoring health and safety.

Surveyor11

Not a US multi-national by any chance? I worked at one US multi-national site where they used to employ a guy periodically to show you how to use a stairs, so nothing surprises me when it comes to health & safety these days.

Sounds like there is an anti-cycling mentality there. Some people just don't like bikes - if it comes from high management, then looks like you've got no choice other than obey the directive. A job is a pretty rare thing to come across these days....

crosswords

There is no provision under any of the H&S regulations prohibiting cycling on work sites.

1. Ask why this has been decided?
2. Ask have there been incidents involving cyclists?
3. Ask what were the cause of the incidents, and what was done?

Get your safety rep involved.

Your estimated risk of injury goes up by about 10% when you ride a bicycle, but your risk of heart disease and stroke are halved.

As far as I am aware no cyclists have ever been killed in a workplace accident in Ireland.

Far too many have died of cardiovascular diseases and sudden death.

Its all about sensible risk management.

kenmc

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Fire you for ignoring health and safety.

Surely Saul Goodman or someone of his ilk would be able to get a constructive or unfair dismissal settlement for this?

househero

Is it an insurance thing? Ask your boss. If not they're just being retarded

manwithaplan

Do you work in a motorway toll booth?

Cienciano

kenmc wrote: »

Time for a new job. And be sure to say exactly why in the exit interview.

Oh, and until you resign, you should also turn up late every single day, citing traffic as the problem, and how it never used to be an issue when you were allowed to cycle to work. You can also call in sick more often too, and then there's the stress associated with driving to and from work.

Not sure if you're taking the piss. Quit a job over this? Jesus wept!

Lusk Doyle

kenmc wrote: »

Time for a new job. And be sure to say exactly why in the exit interview.

Oh, and until you resign, you should also turn up late every single day, citing traffic as the problem, and how it never used to be an issue when you were allowed to cycle to work. You can also call in sick more often too, and then there's the stress associated with driving to and from work.

They can still cycle to the place of work (ie the site boundary) but just not within the site.

You could request that the security of the new location for bike storage is looked at prior to the enforcement of this new "rule". If cars, etc can be parked securely on the site then why not bikes?

macnab

My employer is buying 2 bicycles and a trike for our 90 acre workplace in an effort to become more environmentally friendly.
Recently at a safety briefing someone mentioned doing a risk assesment on the bikes, which was greeted with silence and silly grins.
The reality is that the addition of the bikes actually means the addition of a new risk to be assessed and an increased risk of injury. From a managers perspective that is an instant rejection on the grounds that it costs money, does not enhance our ability to do our work and may have a negative effect on our safety record.
Luckily the manager who makes the decision in this case is an avid cyclist.

In the OP's case I would ignore the managers edict. This is oppression pure and simple. In my experience its very hard to win an argument with a manager of a certain mindset, thats why unions were created (blood starting to boil alert)
Things I would consider doing are as follows,
Presuming you have notice boards:
Post pictures of Rosa Parks asking what she would do if she were a cyclist.
Post pictures of Hitler stopping cyclists.
You get the jist.

crosswords

crosswords wrote: »

There is no provision under any of the H&S regulations prohibiting cycling on work sites.

1. Ask why this has been decided?
2. Ask have there been incidents involving cyclists?
3. Ask what were the cause of the incidents, and what was done?

Get your safety rep involved.

Your estimated risk of injury goes up by about 10% when you ride a bicycle, but your risk of heart disease and stroke are halved.

As far as I am aware no cyclists have ever been killed in a workplace accident in Ireland.

Far too many have died of cardiovascular diseases and sudden death.

Its all about sensible risk management.

To clarify my point above, you have to ask if this is a SAFETY issue or is safety being used as an excuse to implement yet another rule?

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

What's fairness got to do with it? If your employer or whoever owns the property has taken a decision to impose such restrictions (I presume these are not public roads we are talking about), that's their prerogative. This is a matter between you and them, and both parties are in possession of more information (certainly more than anyone you're seeking comments from here) which allow you to assess any perceived risks which this "ruling" is presumably targetted at.

The Nazis called. They want their ideology back. :pac:

hardCopy

crosswords wrote: »

There is no provision under any of the H&S regulations prohibiting cycling on work sites.

1. Ask why this has been decided?
2. Ask have there been incidents involving cyclists?
3. Ask what were the cause of the incidents, and what was done?

Get your safety rep involved.

Your estimated risk of injury goes up by about 10% when you ride a bicycle, but your risk of heart disease and stroke are halved.

As far as I am aware no cyclists have ever been killed in a workplace accident in Ireland.

Far too many have died of cardiovascular diseases and sudden death.

Its all about sensible risk management.

It's all about money.

Cardio related deaths don't cost the company money, bike crashes do.

macnab

Ha ha, Nazi's is right, I was just thinking that if this happened where I worked a few years ago all the cyclists would be wearing Jewish stars to shame the managers.
There would be a twisted ankle or two between the front gate and the workplace also ;-)

Lumen

hardCopy wrote: »

It's all about money.

Cardio related deaths don't cost the company money, bike crashes do.

In all seriousness (Godwinning aside) and without knowing anything about the site in question, my assumption would be that this new rule is a product of ignorance, idiocy and extreme risk aversion.

The idea that management knows best is laughable to anyone that has ever held a job.

RainyDay

hardCopy wrote: »

It's all about money.

Cardio related deaths don't cost the company money, bike crashes do.

Actually, cardio deaths probably do cost the company money, if the company pension scheme provides any death-in-service benefit. An unfit workforce will attract a higher insurance premium for this benefit.

sebastianlieken wrote: »

We recieved a "Safety Hazard Alert" bullitin which is revoking all cyclists privelages on site. (find attached... I couldn't attach hosted image, sorry)

All of us cyclists at my place of work now have to leave our bicycles at an alternative bike rack at the main gate and walk the rest of the way to our office. a walk of half a kilometer. We used to be allowed to use the roads like everyone else, and lock our bike in a purpose built bike room at the office) Do you think this is fair? it seems to me that cyclists are being discriminated against here. Cars can still use the road system on site, as can motorcyclists, etc. but not cyclists. (note, there have been no incedents to provoke this - somebody high up just has a vendetta against cyclists)

Christ on a bike, as they say. What an idiot.

My first reaction would be to send the safety guy on a Plain English course, so he learns how to communicate without using big words to try to impress.

Next step would be to find some way to engage with your employer. Maybe through your line manager, or a safety rep, or a trade union - whatever works in your environment. Point out that this is a pile of nonsense. Look to see the written risk assessment behind this decision. It almost certainly doesn't exist. Point out the many benefits that arise from getting staff active, through cycling or whatever.

If they want to 'eliminate all risks', why are they allowing cars through? It's the cars that are causing the risk of injury, not the cyclists.

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

If they want to 'eliminate all risks', why are they allowing cars through? It's the cars that are causing the risk of injury, not the cyclists.

Indeed, why are they letting the motorcyclists through? By whatever metric you use (risk per km or risk per hour of exposure), motorcyclists have the worst stats.

bambergbike

Haven't seen the wording of whatever writ you've been given - does it leave a loophole for you to use inline skates, a skateboard, or a scooter or to cover the last 500 metres? Not as a long-term solution, just to highlight that cycling is one of the least worst ways of getting from the main gate to your building.

bambergbike

Given that you have a large site, you might also point out the efficiency gains companies like BASF realize through encouraging the use of bikes on-site. Their Ludwigshafen complex is over 5 km long, and a third of journeys on the site are by bike. They have handed out 13 000 company bicycles, including rain gear etc.

Bov

I noticed that the date of action is the 15 Oct. If this is truly a risk/ hazard management strategy they need to implement it from the moment the hazard was detected. I'd go down that route. Ask them why is the action from 15th and not now and if something happens between then and now is the company liable.

Wishbone Ash

RainyDay wrote: »

without using big words to try to impress

The two biggest words in that notice are "improvements" and "arrangements". Hardly "big words to try to impress".

Bear in mind we only have the OP's version of this and the notice does refer to reducing incidents between cycles and other vehicles. To me that would imply that there have been incidents.

While a cycle may be dismounted and pushed to the bicycle storage area, the same could hardly be said for motorised vehicles intending to go to the authorised parking area.

Lumen

Lateral thinking required.

I would advocate falling over in your road cleats and injuring yourself lightly whilst following the instruction to walk your bike.

Perhaps their next step will be to ban road cleats.

Then fall over in MTB cleats.

Then they will have to ban all clipless pedals.

Then fall over in high heels. Unless you work for the HSE, in which case they're already illegal.

seamus

Print up a note and leave it attached to all of the other bikes, arranging two "drive to work days" for all the cyclists. One on day arrange for you all to arrive quite early and take up all of the good parking spaces (ideally the ones that management usually take).

On another day you all arrange to converage at the site at exactly the same time in middle of rush hour.

Ensure that you all have a little sign in the window of the car saying, "I used to cycle to work but now I'm not allowed".

Most likely this has come about because one whingey member of management is annoyed by having to drive behind cyclists. I would recommend walking your bike down the road for the full half km, only moving out of the way when a car beeps at you.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

without knowing anything about the site in question

That's the point. We have no idea what's behind this, and TBH none of us (other than the OP) is really in a position to comment without further background (and I am deliberately not commenting on the rights and wrongs without such background)

But I would add that whoever "operates" the site has the right to impose such restrictions regardless unless there is come contractual agreement that allows staff to use their bikes in a way that is now being stopped

OP, have you actually asked what the reasoning behind this is?

sebastianlieken

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Bear in mind we only have the OP's version of this and the notice does refer to reducing incidents between cycles and other vehicles. To me that would imply that there have been incidents.

This is very true, I tried to give the companies viewpoint aswell by attaching their actual directive rather than paraphrase it. however, I will say the following:

There have been no reported incidents involving cyclists or bicycles on site.

Furthermore, The company used to offer the cycle to work scheme, after a juggle about in managment this scheme is no longer offered "because the company was losing money on it"

Also, about a year ago there were roadworks outside the company premises on the road which serves the site. The company sent out a bullitin that cyclists must dismount at the start of that road (not their property) which added an extra 1.2 km to the journey. After fervent opposition from cyclists pointing out that the road in question was not their jurastiction, cyclists could comfortably ignore this directive without repocusion.

It is in my opinion a BS ruling that goes strongly against the companies ethos of being a "green" company. let alone a modern and sensible company.

I really like the idea of us all wearing Jewish Stars

Surveyor11

sebastianlieken wrote: »

I really like the idea of us all wearing Jewish Stars

Or a sign above the main entrance - "Fahrräder macht frei"

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

That's the point. We have no idea what's behind this, and TBH none of us (other than the OP) is really in a position to comment without further background (and I am deliberately not commenting on the rights and wrongs without such background)

Right, so you want facts before forming any opinion.

Beasty wrote: »

But I would add that whoever "operates" the site has the right to impose such restrictions regardless unless there is some contractual agreement that allows staff to use their bikes in a way that is now being stopped

...but now you are happy to express a default position without any facts whatsoever.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

...but now you are happy to express a default position without any facts whatsoever.

It's their workplace - they are allowed to impose any restriction they see fit, provided it is legal and does not contravene any contractual arrangements

Wishbone Ash

sebastianlieken wrote: »

There have been no reported incidents involving cyclists or bicycles on site

How do you know that for sure? In my place of employment, at any given time there, are several employees/members of the public taking legal action for various incidents which are alleged to/or have happened on site. Only those at senior management level would be aware of this. The majority of general employees would not have any knowledge of it.

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

It's their workplace - they are allowed to impose any restriction they see fit, provided it is legal and does not contravene any contractual arrangements

I could equally say "It's their workplace but they are cannot simply impose any restrictions they like, the restrictions must be legal and in accordance with their contractual arrangements", which requires you to introduce facts (that you don't have) to counter the argument.

macnab

sebastianlieken wrote: »

Also, about a year ago there were roadworks outside the company premises on the road which serves the site. The company sent out a bullitin that cyclists must dismount at the start of that road (not their property) which added an extra 1.2 km to the journey. After fervent opposition from cyclists pointing out that the road in question was not their jurastiction, cyclists could comfortably ignore this directive without repocusion.

Sounds like someone had their feelings hurt and was just waiting for revenge. If thats the type of small mindedness you are dealing with then antagonising them will just make them escalate. Unfortunately most of the time you have to lower yourself to their level to win.:cool:

Reminds me of a story, a male friend was asked to remove his ear stud as it "looked very unprofessional when dealing with the public" (Civil Service) He replied: "How have the women in the office reacted to this new rule?" To which his red faced manager replied: "OK forget about it"

I think in these days of over analysing safety and workplace risks we have lost sight of common sense. I know of a lot of jobs in my workplace that would be considered dangerous and possibly outlawed on safety grounds if I had a mind to point out certain flaws. I however value my job and would not devalue it or compromise it by being small minded.
However if I was in the OP's position I might make an exception.

Surveyor11

If it was me, I'd probably just comply with the directive - it's not worth losing your job over, or at least getting into some sort of disciplinary issue that could come back to haunt you. But I agree the whole scenario is ridiculous.

In terms or rights / contracts etc, I think if it did get legal, for example an employee was disciplined or suspended for not complying, the company would have to produce evidence of a risk assessment, showing that they've assessed cycling as a risk on site and that they've relayed this to all employees (not just cyclists). Once you've broken H & S rules, it would be pretty straight forward to dismiss you for gross conduct.

Depends how far you want to take it - personally, not worth jeopardising a job over.

Surveyor11

bambergbike wrote: »

Given that you have a large site, you might also point out the efficiency gains companies like BASF realize through encouraging the use of bikes on-site. Their Ludwigshafen complex is over 5 km long, and a third of journeys on the site are by bike. They have handed out 13 000 company bicycles, including rain gear etc.

Loved my few summers working in the Daimler Benz truck plant in Woerth-am-Rhein. Bicycles were the norm for getting around this site - it was huge. Loved running errands for the boss on the company bikes. Happy days.

Lumen

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Once you've broken H & S rules, it would be pretty straight forward to dismiss you for gross conduct.

I'm not so sure about that. If you're firing someone for gross misconduct you'd want to be pretty sure not only that they'd broken a rule, but that the rule was reasonable. Otherwise you're opening yourself up to a constructive dismissal case.

Not everyone values job security, even in a recession. I think it is the moral responsibility of those who don't (like KenMc, clearly) to fight the idiocy on everyone else's behalf.

Additionally, few things in life are as satisfying as successfully challenging institutional idiocy.

gman2k

Beasty wrote: »

It's their workplace - they are allowed to impose any restriction they see fit, provided it is legal and does not contravene any contractual arrangements

You will probably find that the restriction is counter to the grant of planning permission on site, which would have stipulated X no of bicycle parking spaces per sq m of office space.
To remove access to the spaces (which should be at the actual place of work) and place them .5km away would certainly be in breach of planning permission, and they can be prosecuted for same.
It is their responsibility to improve the built environment to ensure safety of cyclists, not remove access for cyclists.

If they go ahead and move the cycle spaces, you would have a fair case for starting your job later, and finishing earlier, to enable you to reach your transport. They are changing your working conditions unilaterally.

The employer has acted unilaterally, with out evidence of any risk, and therefore the notice should be fought on the strongest possible terms.

Surveyor11

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. If you're firing someone for gross misconduct you'd want to be pretty sure not only that they'd broken a rule, but that the rule was reasonable. Otherwise you're opening yourself up to a constructive dismissal case..

Fair enough, I have a wife and kid with a mortgage, so wouldn't want to come home with my P45 cos I challenged the company over some silly H & S issue. I'm not condoning it - it sounds like an anti-cycling policy brought in by someone who has a dislike for cycling, particularly when you see the attitude of the B2W scheme.
In terms of H & S policy, my own contract says it's a disciplinary offence to "Deliberately violate safety rules or engage in any activity which is a serious breach of safety rules"
If no bikes on site are written in as a policy, and may even be i n your contract, then I don't think you'd have a leg (or cleat in our case) to stand on if it went legal. My tuppence worth.

Undercover Elephant

Get a complete list of all the other safety directives, SOPs, recommended actions, policies and work rules. Follow them all, no matter how idiotic.

This doesn't always change attitudes, but it's fun and you can't be sacked for it.

monument

It might be worth asking the local council if the change is allowed under the planning permission for the development.

If the OP's location was not listed as Belfast I'd be guessing s/he works in EastPoint business park.

RainyDay

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The two biggest words in that notice are "improvements" and "arrangements". Hardly "big words to try to impress".

If I had half an hour, I could rewrite that notice using fewer, shorter words using the active voice. It really does smack of somebody trying to impress by sounding official to me. They end up sounding officious instead. Here's what I've got with a quick rewrite.

We've reviewed the risks around cycling on the site. We aim to cut out all risks where possible.

If you are cycle to work after 15th October, you'll need to get off your bike at the main gate. Use the pedestrian entrance at the lay-by. Walk your bike to the bike sheds using the paths and crossings.

We are thinking about moving the bike sheds closer to the gate. We'll let you know if this is going ahead. You aren't allowed to cycle on site after 15th October.

Which version do you think will be more easily understood?

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

How do you know that for sure? In my place of employment, at any given time there, are several employees/members of the public taking legal action for various incidents which are alleged to/or have happened on site. Only those at senior management level would be aware of this. The majority of general employees would not have any knowledge of it.

If an employee is taking legal action, you can bet your bottom dollar that the grapevine is well aware of what's going on.

monument wrote: »

It might be worth asking the local council if the change is allowed under the planning permission for the development.

gman2k wrote: »

You will probably find that the restriction is counter to the grant of planning permission on site, which would have stipulated X no of bicycle parking spaces per sq m of office space.
To remove access to the spaces (which should be at the actual place of work) and place them .5km away would certainly be in breach of planning permission, and they can be prosecuted for same.

The planning permission issue is a long shot. It is only fairly recently that local authorities started adding conditions around cycling facilities to planning approvals. Unless there is a significant change of use, it is very unlikely that a local authority would take an enforcement action.

Wishbone Ash

Jesus, we're getting very dramatic!

Surveyor11 wrote: »

IOnce you've broken H & S rules, it would be pretty straight forward to dismiss you for gross conduct

Gross Misconduct is generally an on the spot dismissal and it would have to be a pretty serious breach of any H & S rule which put lives at risk. Cycling a bike instead of walking could in no way be described as gross misconduct.

Lumen wrote: »

... you're opening yourself up to a constructive dismissal case

For a constructive dismissal to stand up in court, the employee would have to provide evidence that their employer made their life in the workplace so unbearable that they felt that they had no choice but to leave. Again, requesting employees to dismount at the gate could in no way be described as contributing to it.

Wishbone Ash

RainyDay wrote: »

Which version do you think will be more easily understood?

The original one. Your one wouldn't be taken seriously.

(But then again, you did think "improvements" was a big word! )

Surveyor11

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Gross Misconduct is generally an on the spot dismissal and it would have to be a pretty serious breach of any H & S rule which put lives at risk. Cycling a bike instead of walking could in no way be described as gross misconduct.

Any H & S rule is the key - doesn't necessarily have to put lives at risk. Some companies carry out risk assesments for paper cuts - I kid you not. If this is coming from high, and it sounds like it is, then the management of the company could dismiss you pretty handy for persistent breach. Probably not on the spot, but would go along the lines of verbal warning, written warning then disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. As I say, I would just comply for an easy life, but if you're principled enough to lose your job over it, then knock yourself out.

Tonyandthewhale

RainyDay wrote: »

Which version do you think will be more easily understood?

Your's. The original was hugely condescending. I hope whoever wrote it isn't normally assigned with the job of writing notices because they badly need some training.