- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Airbus UK Filton (picture credit Arpingstone)Airbus UK employees must wear high-viz and helmets to cycle on site
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 42 min 40 sec ago
Yes! Nineteen Eighty-Four is where the police learn to construct their publicity releases and other statements: our thoughts and prayers are with.....
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 16 min ago
That could be hundreds of addresses, though? In the linked story, Jim Waterson said he spent hours staking out one block......
- Zebra 1 hour 54 min ago
Personally, I thought that the Astana Willier was the best looking bike in the peleton for the past couple of years.
- Prosper0 2 hours 32 min ago
Looking forward to picking the shoes up on Sports Pursuit soon.
- mark1a 2 hours 36 min ago
Judging by the DC Rainmaker review, and looking at the many basic features that are missing and scheduled for H1 next year, I would say that a...
- Hirsute 2 hours 38 min ago
World Bollard Association™️ @worldbollardassoc.bsky.social It’s lift off for our Bluesky account! Welcome aboard. #WorldBollardAssociation🚀
- wtjs 3 hours 40 min ago
As you know, because I keep harping on about it, the police claiming to have taken action means often that they did nothing at all or sent the joke...
- wtjs 3 hours 54 min ago
Nothing surprising about the police refusing to act against offending bus drivers! Doesn't matter how good the video, or how clear the registration...
Add new comment
60 comments
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.
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 '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.
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.
No different than having to wear high vis and a hard hat on lots of industrial sites.
what a nonsense of a moan
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
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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...
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 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 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. Well pointed out.
Thanks, Carlos: that makes sense
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 works, if you get caught speeding, you permanently lose parking privilege after 2 offences.
Why is being caught twice needed?
Any rule which results in an immediate perma is a bit harsh!
Unless of course it amounts to gross misconduct.
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 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 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 wording recommending highly visable clothing for pedestrians as it does cyclists. Just saying...
I've worked on a large site with dedicated footpaths and hi-viz was mandatory for pedestrians.
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 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.
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 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.
Pages