- 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
- hawkinspeter 5 min 9 sec ago
Thermae Bath Spa cordoned off after pillar damaged https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/local-news/live-roman-baths-cordoned-after-9766332
- mdavidford 5 min 58 sec ago
He's tackling the disease of liberal democracy.
- hawkinspeter 16 min 20 sec ago
On BlueSky, I searched for "bollards" to find WorldBollardAssociation and also found a post by Emily Kerr (Oxford City Councillor), celebrating new...
- ubercurmudgeon 5 min 11 sec ago
I was doored in the mid-1990s, when I was not much younger than Remco is now, by a car designed about a decade before. It taco'ed my front wheel...
- tomascjenkins 31 min 32 sec ago
Jaime did say at the end of the article in bold letters that his full review is coming in the new year
- wtjs 40 min 12 sec ago
In most other areas carless would have been accepted I don't think any areas accept that!
- anke2 50 min 8 sec ago
This bike has a lot of clever detail - in terms of structure and aerodynamics. It's clearly inspired by recent Bianchis, Treks and Cervelos, but in...
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 12 min ago
And dogs, as well as their owners who are responsible for their mutts' deadly actions. www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c1mr9gn9jkpo
- jpj84 1 hour 26 min ago
The ratchet hub is a positive? Literally every Mavic-wheel-owner I know has had the ratchet hub fail on them. Sometimes during half iron distance...
- Boopop 1 hour 32 min ago
No mention of the Roadcc youtube channel being hacked? Yesterday evening it was trying to sell me crypto currency. Today it appears to be back up...
Add new comment
60 comments
Lots of places have rules you might not agree with
There are no bars on the doors.
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 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.
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
"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')?
Well, I thought the phrasing might give it away, since H&S rep and resigned are adjacent.
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.
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.
I don't know, but I'm assuming it's the second. Just remembered they had the same notice at the BRI as well.
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 would you care about breathability or aerodynamics there. You will hardly be racing.
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.
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 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 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…
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 active in france since beginning of the year. Crap policy but nothing we can do.
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.
I read that comment as refering to his company sites - in which case comments about tourists in Holland are irrelevant.
Thanks, that makes sense.
It would be good if they could take the opportunity to measure the effect of this ruling.
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.
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 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.
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 specifically refused to call it PPE.
Their pitch - their rules. Pointless whining about it. Its rather like the car drivers there whining that the site speed limit is 20.
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.
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!
I've been told that Ford in Dagenham have done the exact same thing...
Pages