For a start I wouldn't be encouraging people to cycle to work. First - its their time. Not mine. So none of my business. Second - with drivers like ours its damn dangerous to be on a bike.

As for the visiting customer. Aesthetically I don't think it is a good look turning up on a bike. All sweaty and hair a mess with cycle clips.Is the company such a cheapskate it can't afford to give the person a car?

As from there do the risk assessment. Personally. Id err on metal vs metal rather than metal vs a squishy thing.

What is the company culture in terms of sustainability?
Is there any climate change action under way or required in your industry?
Sustainability covers economy, people and environment, so H&S is part of the equation as per looking after people, but so is resource use as per energy and time.

What are your client and customer expectations of your company? In many industries, someone arriving on a bike would be considered a very good thing indeed, does your company need to walk the talk?

I would consider the issues to be broader than just H&S, and it depends on what your company values.

Edited to add, if my internet sleuthing is accurate, then the tagline for your business is "Find Better Ways"... now there is a challenge.

For a start I wouldn't be encouraging people to cycle to work. — Andrew

By encourage - we have provided bike sheds and showers so that people feel more comfortable about riding to work. And we take part in the Aotearoa bike challenge month Love to Ride challenge as one activity in the 'Be Active' part of the 5 ways to mental health stress and wellness initiative. So we enable cycling to work, and encourage a healthy and resilient lifestyle.

All sweaty and hair a mess with cycle clips — Andrew

As i said, this site is only a few blocks away.

As from there do the risk assessment. Personally. Id err on metal vs metal rather than metal vs a squishy thing. — Andrew

The consequences are greater, but the exposure is very small- likelihood being made up of exposure and chance of the risk happening. There are a lot of higher risks deemed 'as low as reasonable practical'.

What is the company culture in terms of sustainability? — Jane

Sustainability is a project I'm working on, moving from just claiming to be in favour of it to having policies and 'walking the talk'. Watch this space, but there are bigger challenges to close out first.


Thanks for the debate though, it's helping me get my head around the issues.

Sustainability is a project I'm working on, moving from just claiming to be in favour of it to having policies and 'walking the talk'. Watch this space, but there are bigger challenges to close out first. — Garth Forsberg

yip, me too.
Something to consider too is hypocrisy and optics to a staff member who has suggested a better way, and is turned down due to 'rules' and 'bigger problems'.
More appropriate might be figuring out some guidance and boundaries for what the company is comfortable with in this space (especially if this person's line manager feels along similar lines to Andrew above), which is actually what you are doing :). Maybe your staff member would be interested in being involved in this too.

Did you find this?
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/walking-cycling-and-public-transport/cycling/workplace-cycling-guide/
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/walking-cycling-and-public-transport/cycling/workplace-cycling-guide/resources/

Having been knocked off my bike for a couple of times on the road, I would only ride off road / in a park / carless spaces these days. Too risky on the road for me.

There are companies I have worked for that specifically excludes mode of transport with less than four tyres. That was doing deliveries.

Having been T-boned at the driver's door by someone who ran through a red light while I was doing a delivery, I would have definitely got hurt if I wasn't in a car. Their vehicle was written off. My vehicle repair cost was just under market value, so it got repaired.

Interesting to see that company and other companies in the same group now changed the stance on motorcycle delivery, they are now allowing it. It would work better in busy cities where it's hard to get a park, but it riskier for getting hurt.

I have been renting electric scooters for short journeys in the city. It's fairly low risk on the footpath, but you do have to keep your wits about you, as driveways are the biggest hazard.

I think individuals should be able to choose whether they want to take the bike or scooter or even walk. I wouldn't be focusing on whether work is liable if someone gets hurt while biking / walking to and from places for work. You get covered by ACC anyway.

This is one of those areas where H+S gets accused of being out of control. On one side of the timesheet people are being actively encouraged to be more active, to use public transport and walk and / or cycle to work. Then, the very second they step in the door we wrap them up in bureaucracy and remove any individual decision making from them.
- I am fully cognizant of the legal duty to provide for H+S at work. It has been established that the workplace extends to include a vehicle, this would include a bicycle, when being used for the purpose of work.
- This is a thinking exercise: before starting a 'risk assessment' establish the parameters (size) of the question.
- metal vs squishy thing is a lovely poster slogan. How about force? mass * acceleration? a car at 1000kg + travelling at 100km/h - force = harm. A bicycle at 12kg going 25km/h (maybe)?
- Risk Assessments need to be undertaken / include 'subject matter experts'. Unless you ride a bicycle of regular basis in a same / similar environment I question if the SME standard has been met. Its the difference between real and perceived.
- The principle(s) of safe travel: Safe driver (rider in this case), safe vehicle, safe journey.
* A safe rider is a competency and judgment question. For drivers most businesses assume that a drivers Licence is proof of this, however do little to nothing to validate this.
* Bicycles are extremely safe - highly maneuverable and excellent stopping distances. (I am being a little provocative with this claim, in order to stimulate thinking)
* It is the 'journey' that creates the risk to cyclists. A lack of cycle lanes in our city and urban spaces, and drivers that drive with a sense of entitlement over the space. How many businesses require the staff to use the 'dutch door opening' method so that they don't harm cyclists?

My personal H+S ethos is to 'never say no'. Rather I seek to embrace opportunities that the business wants to explore and to enable it.

So, when in my previous business we introduced electric bikes and electric scooters for city trips, the challenge was to introduce them with the fewest number of barriers to uptake. An organizational maintenance and inspection programme was implemented to ensure they continued to function properly. No operational rules or requirements were implemented. A 5 minute user video was produced, watching it was optional. Coaching sessions were available upon request. No requirements of when they should or shouldn't be used were put in place. People were simply empowered to make a choice for themself.

After 3 years car use for trips under 4km were down approx. 50%. No bicycle or scooter incidents had been reported (fully acknowledge that this is a weak lag indicator, however still and indicator) and no reports received for unsafe of inappropriate use. In the initial months of introduction about 45 coaching sessions were done.
- People self selected, and were empowered to make the right decision for themselves.
In the same timeframe I had in look into 4 incidents were one of our drivers failed to perceive / giveaway to a cyclist.

Cycling is awesome for people who like it, and people who don't should not feel compelled to do use them. So Garth, have confidence that people can ride bikes at work.

On a slight tangent / extension, I was recently asked to look into work methods to undertake environmental monitoring a a large forest area, with an extensive network of cycle trails. They were proposing using motorbikes or quad bikes and were concerned about being hit by mountain bikers! To do the work on foot would take in excess of 40hrs. It could be ridden in less than a day. The motorbike expert assessed the terrain as 'highly challenging requiring an expert level of skill'. The monitoring is being done by mtn bike. The requirements: any monitoring personnel must have undertaken a competency assessment from an SME, their bike must have been inspected / serviced by a suitably skilled person (bike mechanic) and they must keep their wheels on the ground. They love their work day (although I'm sure they'd love to jump a little more ;-).

On a slight tangent / extension, I was recently asked to look into work methods to undertake environmental monitoring a a large forest area, with an extensive network of cycle trails. They were proposing using motorbikes or quad bikes and were concerned about being hit by mountain bikers! To do the work on foot would take in excess of 40hrs. It could be ridden in less than a day. The motorbike expert assessed the terrain as 'highly challenging requiring an expert level of skill'. The monitoring is being done by mtn bike. The requirements: any monitoring personnel must have undertaken a competency assessment from an SME, their bike must have been inspected / serviced by a suitably skilled person (bike mechanic) and they must keep their wheels on the ground. They love their work day (although I'm sure they'd love to jump a little more ;-). — Matthew Bennett

You entire post is a great illustration of what risk assessment should look like - it is not about stopping unsafe work from occurring, but about enabling work to be done safely.

And your example at the end is right on the mark for this - including considering the match between the workers and the work. I am sure that there was at least a few moderately skilled recreational mountain bikers in the company eager to take on that work - and by setting the expectations around the work you are able to select the lowest risk method to complete the work.

And also the point of thinking outside of just the risk to your worker, and consider the system as a whole. The fact that having any employee be made to drive a car (because the potential consequences of cycling are more serious in a car vs cyclist accident) actually exposes a significant greater number of people to that risk (other pedestrians / cyclists that the worker may now interact with in their car). So if you are considering the risk to everyone that (may) be affected by this choice, cycling may actually be the safe option.

I'm with Matthew on this one, and he's provided an excellent example.

Have you also considered the fact that in allowing cycling, you're reducing the risk to the general public posed by your employee driving? This would include risks such as legal liability, insurance, etc as well.

Gee> I wouldn't be using mountain bikers as the exemplar.

I've got one of those. Had a fall with quite a significant head injury. Completed our Return To Work program.

What does he do? Goes mountain biking again
What happens. Has another fall
What's the consequence. Another significant head injury.
Where am I? Grumpy because I have another RTW to deal with and more lost productivity.

We must keep reminding ourselves that we work in occupational health and safety :wink:
They looked at the work being done my motorbike and deemed that to risky, they considered walking but time constraints were an issue (plus if they were using the mountain bike trails for access would it not be a risk of having a crazy mountain biker like the one you have had to deal with taking them out on a blind corner or the other side of a jump!).
They considered what they could do to minimize the risk while riding - not screaming down the hill pulling off sick air! - and set the expectations for the work. Seemed like decent risk management to me - rather than calling the worker a risk based on a hobby they have outside of work and pulling the "can't do it cus of H&S" card.

All good and well - I do know that many a business in Wellington have offered the option to employees to scooter/ walk or cycle to meetings within close proximity. At my husbands work they have now received E-bikes, the foldable ones - No training or safety brief, at the very least - 2nd day......employee falls of and fractures wrist, cannot drive a car, and this car usage is his main task. Their HS was not even consulted :)

good info here. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/walking-cycling-and-public-transport/cycling/workplace-cycling-guide/

employee falls of and fractures wrist, cannot drive a car, and this car usage is his main task. Their HS was not even consulted — Janene Magson

To be honest - the issue isn't "H&S" wasn't consulted, it is that it seems that their procurement process doesn't include to identify and assess new types of equipment for risk prior to purchase and/or use.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I consider this good. 'Okay' perhaps, not great? Waka Kotahi is strongly encouraging the use of bikes here which is great to see. To a person / business that doesn't have strong H+S thinking these resources do help navigate into the space, however in some ways its a lot of what makes people repel from H+S - a whole reem of paperwork, full of jargon and tech speak, broiled in compliance and little practical application.

• If we surveyed 1000 riders, how many would a) gain any benefit from reading the risk matrix, and b) remain engaged with us for more than the second row?

The AKL Council tool has some useful dimensions.

So, much of Waka Kotahi's info is about providing support for people that are uncertain on how to enter this space, which is good to see they are providing. A good (suitable and sufficient?) risk assessment (process) must include a subject matter expert and then a lot of the barriers inherent in h+s bureaucracy falls away. Think of this:

• How many parents have a checklist for when they start putting their children onto a bike? (literally, thousands do this every year)
• How many businesses have a competency test for walking down stairs? (the majority of us do this daily - have we thought about the consequences of falling down them?)

Strip away the clutter and what is left is what really counts - in this case: suitability of the vehicle for the task and a maintenance program to keep it working.

If there was ever an example of where we as H&S professionals should stay in our lane and concentrate on controlling the risk, not the hazard, then this is it!

While we can assess the risks associated from travelling this short route by bike, we aren't in the business of fixing holistic hazards associated with travelling by bike on NZ roads.

If travelling this short route by bike falls inside your risk appetite then there's no reason why it shouldn't go ahead on H&S grounds.

Garth,

As you may recall from when we both worked at Dynamic Controls I am a keen cyclist and still am.

Let your man ride his bike between work sites.

The holistic ESG perspective is what needs to be considered here. Incrementally, it will result in one less four wheeled vehicle on the road and, you never know, it may promote Christchurch becoming the Amsterdam of the southern hemisphere.

I did not expect this question to generate so much response. It was a one-off question about a one-off trip, and is not going to be worth writing up a company procedure for, unless it starts to become more common. However, I've been talking offline, reviewing what's been said here, and looking further where I can. These are my thoughts are all that feedback:
!) The benefits for cycling more and driving less are huge - mental health, physical health, direct cost, indirect environmental cost, etc. The Waka Kotahi information above stresses this a lot.
2) The risk factors are the same for a car. Driver error, other vehicle error, road and traffic conditions. I've looked up the accident rate and it's slightly higher per km for cyclists than drivers, and the likelihood of injury is greater. But the mitigation is the same - driver training and being aware of the risks. Where is our risk appetite? If we are too worried to allow cycle use in company time, why do we allow car use? The line is arbitrary. As per Chris H above, we aren't in the business of fixing hazards associated with NZ roads.
3) Other factors such as maintenance of the bicycle, whether it is suitable for carrying any required cargo, and whether the clients will have a positive impression. We allow private vehicle use for some instances, and stipulate that the vehicle must be presentable, suitable and well maintained. The same extends to bicycles.
4) Insurance. This could be considered commercial use. But a bicycle is insured under house and contents, rather than as a vehicle so doesn't have a commercial use clause. If there is an accident while riding a bicycle on company time, would the riders vehicle third party insurance cover damage to any other vehicles or property. There have been a lot of bicycle thefts covered in the newspaper recently. Would the bicycle be insured against theft while at the client's site? I am not an expert on this level of insurance but am happy for anyone here to answer, although it doesn't really fall into our H&S lane.

I've looked up the accident rate and it's slightly higher per km for cyclists than drivers, and the likelihood of injury is greater. — Garth Forsberg

I am guessing that is all vehicle/cycle accidents? Be careful comparing aggregated data as the risks for riding a bike a short distance within the CBD is a completely different from commuting to/from work or long distance rides on open roads.

If there is an accident while riding a bicycle on company time, would the riders vehicle third party insurance cover damage to any other vehicles or property. — Garth Forsberg

I would expect the company's public liability I surance would cover any damage done to other's property by an employee while on company business - best bet is to check with your insurer to confirm it's covered by your current policy or if the policy needs amending.

I did a risk assessment and decided that it for 'all travel to & from and during work' is to ban all vehicles with a steering wheel.

Risk assessing the route may be a good idea. I was knocked off my cycle by a bus once, Cycle Action Network advised me large vehicles can't see bikes easily. They did an excercise where they got some bus drivers on bikes, and cyclists to experience what bus drivers can see while driving. So factors such as whether a heavy industry area with trucks, or if a high speed area may potentially impact this decision.

From an insurance point of view, a company vehicle is covered by insurance, a private car (or bike) are not. So this begs the question, should the company have 'pool bikes'. this leads to maintenance issues and insurance issues and storage issues. No cyclist comes of well when hit by a vehicle be it a heavy vehicle or light one.

if you use one personally (as i do) then that is my personal choice and responsibility. personally i think static bikes in company gyms and other locations a better idea.

I recall a UK client whose sites were so large that cycling was the only safe way to get around. There were strict controls on ignition sources that all but prohibited the use of vehicles with internal combustion engines.