Workers at Airbus’s two main UK sites at Filton in Bristol and Broughton in North Wales have been told that they must wear helmets and reflective clothing while riding bikes there.
The road.cc reader who shared the letter with us, and who wishes to remain anonymous, said: “It seems the powers that be in Airbus UK have no faith in their own ability to see/not run over other road users!
“Unfortunately for me I am a contractor and not directly employed by Airbus and so have no means of protest that wouldn’t risk me losing my job, so the obvious thing to do seemed to be to get the memo out there for more public attention – I feel pretty strongly that Airbus shouldn’t escape scrutiny for what amounts to a blatant anti-cyclist policy that will only reduce cycling levels.
“There doesn’t seem to be any equivalent decree that all motor vehicles must be painted bright yellow!”
We are aware however from another person who works at the Filton site that Airbus does take action against poor driving there.
He told us that on the site, there is a hill that motorists regularly speed down, and a speed gun is being used to catch people breaking the on-site limit, and warning the drivers involved.
Combined, the sites employ 11,000 staff – 4,500 at Filton and 6,500 at Broughton – but one road.cc reader who works there believes the move “amounts to a blatant anti-cyclist policy that will only reduce cycling levels.”
The new requirements were communicated to employees in a memo dated 20 February and take effect from tomorrow, Monday 9 March.
It read: “In the interest of the safety of all our employees on site, we continuously review our procedures to ensure we can provide the best and safest environment. This includes traffic safety and, in addition to the on-going safety related infrastructure improvements you will see at both sites, we have decided that safety equipment for cyclists becomes a mandatory requirement.
“From Monday March 9th, 2020, all cyclists who wish to access and cycle in Broughton and Filton sites must be wearing reflective vests or jackets and safety helmets. If they are not, they will not be allowed to cycle on site.
“It is the responsibility of the cyclist wishing to enter the sites to equip themselves with this essential safety equipment along with white front lights and red rear lights for cycling in the dark if required.”
The memo continued: “These new clothing requirements complement the PeopleSafety@Work primary rule to drive safely on site and strengthen Highway Code guidance which states cyclists should:
– wear a helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened;
– Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light;
– Reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
“Airbus in the UK’s Site Traffic and Parking Policy is in the process of being updated to reflect the mandatory rules which have been introduced by the site leadership teams, fully supported by the Trade Unions (TU), to reinforce the priority to keep people safe.”
The operative word in that extract from the Highway Code, however, is that cyclists are advised they “should” use such equipment; it isn’t a legal requirement to do so, which would have been conveyed by use of the word “must” instead.
60 thoughts on “Airbus UK employees must wear high-viz and helmets to cycle on site”
I’ve been told that Ford in
I’ve been told that Ford in Dagenham have done the exact same thing…
Shift change at Broughton is
Shift change at Broughton is chuffin’ bedlam.1000+ sleep deprived (insert description) people wanting to get where they are going as soon as possible.And the road into Chester is hoffic at the best of times.If you’re not wearing a helmet you need a word with yourself and if you don’t like the flouro look then just put it on when you get there.
gibbon wrote:
The question is, should 1,000 sleep deprived people be speeding, jumping lights, texting, close passing cyclists and generally being dangerous on the roads? If you believe they should then I hope your magic hat saves you!
Their pitch – their rules.
Their pitch – their rules. Pointless whining about it. Its rather like the car drivers there whining that the site speed limit is 20.
It does sound as though they
It does sound as though they are suggesting that a cycle helmet is appropriate as Personal Protective Equipment, I wonder whether or not the HSE agree with that.
No they don’t, and they
No they don’t, and they specifically refused to call it PPE.
A lot of sites have their own
A lot of sites have their own rules once you are past the gate. I’m not sure it’s worth getting worked up about.
How dare you! Dont you know
How dare you! Dont you know this forum exists for a certain section of the road.cc readership to rollout the victim blaming & environmental cards the mere second hi-vis and helmets are mentioned.
Its a classic dog whistle – the context doesnt matter.
Unsurprising. When staff from
Unsurprising. When staff from the company I work for go to some customers, before they set foot on site they have to wear yellow jackets and safety shoes, the rules are there for their own protection.
As an aside, a company near me, which shall remain anonymous, introduced similar rules. They also introduced search powers, after one member of staff who cycled to work pushed his bike out after one shift, strange as he always rode it on and off site. The bike fell over, and he couldn’t pick it up. Turned out the frame was full of mercury that he was robbing. Light fingered didn’t do it justice.
It would be good if they
It would be good if they could take the opportunity to measure the effect of this ruling.
Yet another misinformed
Yet another misinformed jobsworth in Health and Safety who isn’t competent to run a whelk stall. Just as well I don’t work there any more, or there would have been some interesting discussions about this new, misguided, irrelevant rule. There doesn’t appear to be any justification given for it, like collision or injury data, so why are they introducing it? Does Airbus have shares in a helmet company? Airbus is a multi-national company, so do these rules apply in other countries, or is it just the crass British management that thinks they know best without examining the evidence. Disgraceful that this is being supported by the unions.
We had the same thing at Bristol City Council when I worked there, with the head of H&S demanding that this be brought in, against the opposition of cyclists and myself, who was at the time a H&S rep, but I resigned immediately the council adopted the measure.
It’s a worldwide policy. Been
It’s a worldwide policy. Been active in france since beginning of the year. Crap policy but nothing we can do.
World wide? Australia, NZ
World wide? Australia, NZ and possibly France? That’s a very small world. In places where cycling is safe, Denmark, Holland, the only people wearing that stuff are tourists. It’s only places where the authorities have failed to make cycling safe that such measures are introduced, and it’s just the normal victim blaming.
eburtthebike wrote:
I read that comment as refering to his company sites – in which case comments about tourists in Holland are irrelevant.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Plus a 30 kph speed limit as
Plus a 30 kph speed limit as well I hope. Might as well address the source of the hazard.
A site I worked had a few
A site I worked had a few incidents of driver/cyclist conflicts at the gate, where an off-road cyclepath joined the road. I pointed out that there was a posted 10mph speed limit at the gate and that if this was enforced it might solve some of the issues.
The next week the speed limit was reposted as 20mph.
I was looking for a ‘face
I was looking for a ‘face palm’ smiley, this will have to do…
The large site I worked on had a footpath which was in a very poor state of repair. I made a number of complaints about it (I worked at the far end of it), but it was obviously in the ‘too difficult to do’ box.
Then someone wearing inappropriate footwear, who shouldn’t have been using said footpath, twisted their ankle and the footpath was immediately closed. The only people I saw using it after that were H&S Reps on ‘safety walks’.
The irony…
Reflective vests/jackets or
Reflective vests/jackets or Hi-vis vests? Most bike jackets have some reflective features so it shouldn’t be too difficult to comply, but if they’re insisting that everyone has to wear learing-difficulty-yellow vests over their usual cycling clothes then they are taking the pi55! I imagine one of those things would ruin the properties of any technical, breathable bikewear, not to mention the effect on aerodynamics. But what do they know about aerodynamics anyway?… Oh, hang on…
Anyway Road CC, these fcuking adverts are taking up 75% of my screen – get it sorted!
It’s only onsite, so why
It’s only onsite, so why would you care about breathability or aerodynamics there. You will hardly be racing.
Obviously because people will
Obviously because people will be commuting x number of kilometers before they arrive on site – or do you expect everyone to stop at the gate and get changed into on-site safety gear? If so, you would have to wear a rucksack, which will also ruin the breathability and aerodynamics of your cycling clothing.
Anyway, why would I care any less about breathability and aerodynamics on-site? Have you ever cycled from one end of the Filton site to the other? It must be a few kilometers.
Given what is written in the
Given what is written in the Highway Code, it is difficult to see how any H&S person could come up with a different policy.
As noted previously, it is there house and they make the rules. I don’t believe attendance is compulsory.
The HC advises about wearing
The HC advises about wearing a helmet and hi-viz, it isn’t law. H&S is supposed to make decisions based on data and facts, not assumptions and prejudice, and this is exactly why they have such a bad reputation.
Lots of places have rules you
Lots of places have rules you might not agree with
There are no bars on the doors.
hirsute wrote:
Depends if you like eating, drinking and having a roof over your head I suppose. Yes, you could always leave and starve and not be able to pay the rent.
You already said you resigned
You already said you resigned from one job…
And if you can’t get any support for change and you can’t move jobs, you just have to suck it up.
hirsute wrote:
And where, exactly, did I say that? I resigned from my voluntary position as a H&S rep because H&S were ignoring the very rules they are mandated to follow.
You said
You said
“We had the same thing at Bristol City Council when I worked there, with the head of H&S demanding that this be brought in, against the opposition of cyclists and myself, who was at the time a H&S rep, but I resigned immediately the council adopted the measure.”
How was I suppposed to glean from that that you only resigned as a rep (bearing in mind ‘when I worked there’)?
hirsute wrote:
Well, I thought the phrasing might give it away, since H&S rep and resigned are adjacent.
This is almost as stupid as
This is almost as stupid as the signs in the Rolls-Royce car park in Filton, which tell cyclists to dismount.
Such measures are victim blaming because the management won’t make cycling safe, so they blame the cyclists, introduce measures like this which tick the box “cycling safety” and give themselves a pat on the back for doing something, even if it is ineffectual and irrelevant. Just proves that they haven’t done any research about helmets or hi-viz, and the decision is based on assumption and prejudice.
eburtthebike wrote:
Do they tell you to dismount and then walk on easily available and convenient footways, or just dismount and then carry on as you were?
Many of those large sites aren’t really designed for foot traffic any more than for cycling.
brooksby wrote:
I don’t know, but I’m assuming it’s the second. Just remembered they had the same notice at the BRI as well.
Not surprising this,
Not surprising this, especially on an industrial site with work based (not people commuting) vehicle movements. Sadly H&S seems to be drifting back to ‘wrapping people in cotton wool’ as opposed to managing risk; then there’s Security where there’s masses of opportunities to come up with risk averse crazy policies!
As someone who worked there
As someone who worked there for twenty years, I can assure you that there are relatively few work based vehicle movements and vast numbers of private cars. There are probably fewer work based vehicles than on the public roads.
Can’t disagree with your assessment of H&S though.
If they’re concerned about
If they’re concerned about safety then to balance things up a bit, why don’t they mandate that all vehicle passengers/drivers must wear a helmet and hi-viz whilst moving? I appreciate that they can impose whatever rules they like, but why are they only targetting cyclists – don’t motorists deserve equal protection?
I’m pretty sure that if the
I’m pretty sure that if the Highway Code stated that drivers should wear helmets then the H&S person would incorporate that advice into their rules.
H&S will seek the most authoratative source of guidance for any specific issue. They will not seek raw data, research papers, etc. In this case, for driving on their roads, it is the Highway Code.
I think all venom should be directed in that direction instead of some overworked individual trying to ensure they don’t end up in front of the HSE or in court.
But won’t anyone think of the
But won’t anyone think of the poor motorists? They’re quite likely to get a head injury if they do hit something. It just seems churlish to exclude them.
The Highway Code has the same
The Highway Code has the same wording recommending highly visable clothing for pedestrians as it does cyclists. Just saying…
I’ve worked on a large site
I’ve worked on a large site with dedicated footpaths and hi-viz was mandatory for pedestrians.
Anyone want to bet that any
Anyone want to bet that any motorist caught speeding on site are warned, rather than having their ability to take their private motor vehicle on site removed for several months.
I can tell you where my wife
I can tell you where my wife works, if you get caught speeding, you permanently lose parking privilege after 2 offences.
Why is being caught twice
Why is being caught twice needed?
Any rule which results in an
Any rule which results in an immediate perma is a bit harsh!
Unless of course it amounts to gross misconduct.
If it’s site mandated PPE, it
If it’s site mandated PPE, it should be provided free of charge. Basically there should be a store cupboard at the site entrance office with helmets and hi vis provided…
carlosdsanchez wrote:
Do other workers have to buy their own steel toe capped boots, his viz jackets, etc if those things have been mandated for their workplace
(But I suppose that’s different, because stuff like that is mandated after an H&S assessment under the relevant legislation. And yet I doubt that a H&S assessment has said that cyclists on the site need to wear PPE, and in any case – as others have said – the HSE itself doesn’t count a bike helmet as PPE…).
No you don’t have to buy any
No you don’t have to buy any PPE that’s required by your job, your employer has to provide it for you. You could argue that the helmet and high viz is only a requirement for the site, not for riding outside of work, therefore they should supply to you free of charge.
Carlosdsanchez is right. If
Carlosdsanchez is right. If an employer requires their employees to wear any kind of protective clothing or equipment, it is Personal Protective Equipment and the company has to be responsible for providing and maintaining that clothing or equipment: https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/ppe.htm. See also https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg174.pdf.
PPE should only be required “where and to the extent that such risk has been adequately controlled by other means which are equally or more effective.” In other words, the use of PPE should be a ‘last resort’ option, that should only be required after seeking and, where possible, implementing other measures to mitigate the risk that PPE is intended to address.
The company also has to train employees in the correct use of PPE, which in this case would include the correct fitting of cycle helmets.
PPE is always a last resort.
PPE is always a last resort. Well pointed out.
Thanks, Carlos: that makes
Thanks, Carlos: that makes sense 😀
More head injuries occur as a
More head injuries occur as a result of being occupant in a car during a collision than for any other reason, so why aren’t helmets mandated in cars? Race car drivers use them after all.
This type of nonsense
This type of nonsense complaining really damages us cyclists, I work on an industrial site, I have to wear Hi-Viz (and have done so for 20 years) and hard hats, this is when walking around (there are no pavements to walk on), cycling and even driving as when I get out of a van I have to have Hi Viz on, this is standard H&S were vechicles are driving around
bigbiker101 wrote:
No, this type of nonsense really damages us cyclists, and complaining about it is entirely right. The imposition of rules which go against all H&S principles and which they refuse to justify by reference to facts or data, and which they cannot prove works, just because they can, really, really damages H&S.
When I was a H&S rep, I joined a discussion website for H&S reps, and the subject of cycle helmets came up, with almost everyone in favour. I chipped in and pointed out that the data did not support them, which nobody disproved, they just thought they were right despite the evidence. When I continued to point out that they were wrong, I came in for some very heavy criticism, but they still were unable to disprove what I said. Some of them got so heated that the moderator stepped in and closed the discussion. This is why so many people hate H&S; they have the power to impose totally arbitrary rules while ignoring the principles of H&S and little things like facts. Some of them really are little tyrants.
bigbiker101 wrote:
Applying the rules to everyone sounds a lot fairer to me, but to single out cyclists as being the only at-risk group without any kind of justification seems unreasonable.
What’s going to be the result of all of this “damage” to cyclists – discriminatory rules and motorists shouting abuse at us in the streets? Already happens.
No different than having to
No different than having to wear high vis and a hard hat on lots of industrial sites.
what a nonsense of a moan
I’ve not read the thread, so
I’ve not read the thread, so I suspect I’m repeating what others have said.
This is a typical result when a health and Safetey executive does a risk assessment. Just a jobsworth thinking about liability.
I suspect all the production vehicles, stacker trucks, etc. are painted bright yellow, have Amber flashing lights, and sound a warning when put in reverse.
Surely similar requirements must be put on visiting cars.
Before I retired I used to visit factories as a soft wear support engineer. At one factory just outside Gloucester I had a job in the production office. At the reception I was made to sit through a fifteen minute video on health and Safetey procedures. I was then knitted out in hi viz, protective footwear, and hard hat, and had to wait for an escort to walk me across the factory floor to the office. The factory floor was totally deserted. My escort told me, “We stooped manufacturing here three years ago”!
I know that the average
I know that the average ‘jobsworth’ and ‘elf and safety’ can be tiresome and appear ridiculous. But they are there for a reason – to protect the worker. Surely it’s better to work in an environment where one’s safety is duly considered and also to be able to go to work not thinking that you may get injured or killed. As used to be the case not that long ago.
Lukas wrote:
That certainly was true, but it may not be any more. When H&S introduce rules which don’t make anyone safer, like this, it patently isn’t.
Am I the only one wondering
Am I the only one wondering why pedestrians are excluded from the protection of Health & Safety? Surely they are as much at risk as cyclists with all those vehicles moving around so they should be ‘encouraged’ to wear appropriate clothing and head gear.
Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that a car driver will instantly become a pedestrian as soon as they step outside their killing machines.
How do you know pedestrians
How do you know pedestrians are excluded? This article doesn’t give any information about their pedestrian policy. Most industrial and manufacturing sites I visit require me to wear hi-vis, only walk on designated walkways, stay behind vehicle barriers etc. Blatantly anti-pedestrian perhaps?
The Airbus UK letter doesn’t
The Airbus UK letter doesn’t make sense.
It states that ‘we have decided that safety equipment for cyclists is a mandatory requirement’. So the company should provide ‘mandatory’ equipment.
It goes on to say ‘…responsibility of the cyclist wishing to enter the sites to equip themselves with this essential safety equipment’. The safety equipment is only ‘essential’ because the company says so.