WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby fat and old » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:42 pm

As I’ve said many a time, I didn’t think that using OH&S laws to gain respect/safety on our roads was a good thing. I based that solely on the realities of the system; there’s always give and take and I’m not sure how much I’ll be asked to give. But.....I’d like to feel safe on the road again. What has bought about this willingness to consider WH&S? This

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/v ... 1511416569

Victorian THC report on Gendered Violence. Workplace sexual harassment to most of us non c-suite types.

The unions have long recognised that the one sure fire way to combat ANY issues in the workplace is through OH&S. In fact in many ways it is the only avenue open to them to have any say at all. Anyone in Vic. construction will remember the overnight change of shoppies into OH&S reps. What the THC has done is move harassment away from being an equality issue and made it a Worksafe issue. This is a smart move. There’s very little defence against an OH&S issue. It’s something that is easy for a collective to get behind rather than having an individual battle. And OH&S issues can play out well beyond the immediate workplace as we all know.

Is this something that could or should be replicated for cyclists given our interactions with so many employees during the daily ride? I’m beginning to think so.

Inspired by this

https://theconversation.com/women-dont- ... -do-107803

Arbuckle23
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:07 pm
Location: Mornington Peninsula

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby Arbuckle23 » Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:26 pm

When I ride, it's not a workplace.

Scott_C
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby Scott_C » Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:24 pm

While it is painfully obvious that the Councils and Departments that have control of the roads (and therefore are in control of the workplace of delivery cyclists and the like) are completely failing to meet the minimum standard of removing or reducing all hazards so far as is reasonably practicable I don't support using the OSH laws to get them to improve their game as they will simply ban cycling wherever a hazard exists that they don't want to fix.

OSH laws are a good way to force action when you are a group protected under the anti-discrimination laws and therefore unable to be legally excluded but for a group with no protection the likely outcome is outright bans, as supported by the Hierarchy of Controls.

We might be able to get a different result if the campaign were led by a protected group and I think there would be a great role here for disabled cyclists if they wanted to take it, but it is not for me to expect them to act on my behalf.

For example, we still have a bunch of intersection on "bicycle routes" with designated shared paths on either sides of the intersection without cycling lanterns to allow cyclists to legally cross without dismounting, if you scheduled a media event where a paraplegic hand cyclist crawled across the intersection because it is illegal to ride across I'd bet the lanterns would be installed or the laws would be changed much quicker than any amount of campaigning from able bodied cyclists will be able to achieve. It is the same for all other instances where "cyclists dismount" is seen as an acceptable treatment.

NASHIE
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:16 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby NASHIE » Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:44 pm

FFS, you will have us all filling out take 5s and lodging SWIMS before every ride :roll:

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby human909 » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:12 pm

NASHIE wrote:FFS, you will have us all filling out take 5s and lodging SWIMS before every ride :roll:
Hey if the evey motorists has to do the same then that almost sounds like a win. (But SWIMS are such a joke it isn't funny. Being alert about safety is important. Making it a paperwork box ticking exercise is a distraction. OH&S is ridiculous in Australia. But that is another topic completely.)

But anything that could bring into perspective the absurdity of the way our road system treats pedestrians and cyclists and second and third class citizens would be good.

I spent this weekend away cycling. In the course of conversation a Dutch person commented on her observation that in Australia if we say a destination is 10 minutes away we are talking about 10 minutes of DRIVING. She would have interpreted it as walking.

Personally I reference things in terms of walking or suffix the statement with the mode of transport.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby fat and old » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:02 am

Yeah look, I've been against the use of OH&S completely; for much the same reasons given. Notably the idea of "elimination" of the risk. But I think some aren't thinking this through or I've not explained things correctly.

I'm not proposing we run the roads under a "blanket" OH&S system. What I'd like to see is the OH&S rules and enforcement applied to employees whose workplace ARE the roads. Take bus drivers for example. The bane of many riders. What if every time a bus did something wrong...say a sub 1m pass in the northern states...Worksafe stepped in? PIN noticed the company. Shut down operations while an investigation was held? No going to ambivalent police anymore. Straight to Worksafe where you bet they'll issue a fine based on your video evidence. Same goes for all delivery, cartage and other road users. Most companies are already wary of the public impression of their company's brand, but there's no teeth in the system. Worksafe are those teeth. An employee who causes Worksafe to be knocking at the boss' door isn't going to last. An employer who doesn't make changes is going to be spending a lot of time and money. I can tell you now as an employer if given the choice between the police calling me about a driver's behaviour on the road (or indeed the affected party) or Worksafe knocking on my door I'll take the popo anyday.

Make these issues a WHS issue, not a policing issue. That's the gist of the THC report. If you can't gain traction with the existing system, adopt one that will give you the clout to do so.

Anyway, just a thought.

Neddysmith
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:10 am

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby Neddysmith » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:50 am

For the benefit of everyone involved lets NOT mentioned anything at all about WH&S and cycling.

No good can come of this.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:23 am

fat and old wrote:Yeah look, I've been against the use of OH&S completely; for much the same reasons given. Notably the idea of "elimination" of the risk. But I think some aren't thinking this through or I've not explained things correctly.

I'm not proposing we run the roads under a "blanket" OH&S system. What I'd like to see is the OH&S rules and enforcement applied to employees whose workplace ARE the roads. Take bus drivers for example. The bane of many riders. What if every time a bus did something wrong...say a sub 1m pass in the northern states...Worksafe stepped in? PIN noticed the company. Shut down operations while an investigation was held? No going to ambivalent police anymore. Straight to Worksafe where you bet they'll issue a fine based on your video evidence. Same goes for all delivery, cartage and other road users. Most companies are already wary of the public impression of their company's brand, but there's no teeth in the system. Worksafe are those teeth. An employee who causes Worksafe to be knocking at the boss' door isn't going to last. An employer who doesn't make changes is going to be spending a lot of time and money. I can tell you now as an employer if given the choice between the police calling me about a driver's behaviour on the road (or indeed the affected party) or Worksafe knocking on my door I'll take the popo anyday.

Make these issues a WHS issue, not a policing issue. That's the gist of the THC report. If you can't gain traction with the existing system, adopt one that will give you the clout to do so.

Anyway, just a thought.
I completely agree. Contrast WH&S with this from 10 days ago:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-07/ ... t/10594726

"The one-year-old boy has somehow fallen under the wheel and is now deceased as a result of injuries sustained by being driven over,"

"it is one of those unfortunate accidents that realistically should not happen and unfortunately, from time to time, they do."

How do you think things would go down if when responding to a workplace incident the authorities simply replied "it is one of those unfortunate accidents that realistically should not happen and unfortunately, from time to time, they do."?


(In the case of this road accident I'm not trying to throw blame at those involved. But I was just shocked at the police response and how it would have contrasted with a response from a workplace accident. I think some WH&S goes too far, the approach towards safety on our roads doesn't go nearly far enough. )

RobertL
Posts: 1703
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby RobertL » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:20 pm

I read something a while ago that stated that about 30% of all vehicles on the road were being driven on "work time". So that's all taxis, buses, delivery vans etc, but also real estate agents, tradies and just people going from one work location to another.

Furthermore, that 30% of traffic causes about 30% of injuries and deaths on the road.

The argument was that you could really attack that 30% through the WH&S system.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby fat and old » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:32 pm

human909 wrote:How do you think things would go down if when responding to a workplace incident the authorities simply replied "it is one of those unfortunate accidents that realistically should not happen and unfortunately, from time to time, they do."?
It wouldn't happen. No matter how good a track record the employer has, no matter how tragic the situation. The employer would have been charged under sec 32 of the OH&S act (vic). Failure to provide a safe workplace.

We have a culture in Australia that no one.....no one at all....dies at work without repurcussions. Good or bad, that's the individual's call. Why can't that attitude be applied to cyclist deaths and injuries caused by someone working? If you cause a death or injury at work as an employee there's still hell to pay. You can (and almost certainly will be) prosecuted. What is the difference between the employee on the factory floor, the 10th floor of the Gov. office building, on site or on the road? What's the difference between the employer who operates a large factory, office building site or Bus routes? Nothing. No difference, except for the method by which they're held accountable for their actions.

And yes, there are tens of thousands of employees driving about that are not delivery drivers or taxis. This is why I think the idea has merit.

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21319
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby g-boaf » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:41 pm

Neddysmith wrote:For the benefit of everyone involved lets NOT mentioned anything at all about WH&S and cycling.

No good can come of this.
What would likely occur is that cycling would be stopped in the interests of health and safety.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:43 pm

fat and old wrote:Why can't that attitude be applied to cyclist deaths and injuries caused by someone working?
By extension that would apply to all road users injured by somebody working. That opens a can of worms that the authorities don't want to open. Because our roads are dangerous but neither society nor our politicians actually want to the necessary action.
g-boaf wrote:What would likely occur is that cycling would be stopped in the interests of health and safety.
What is that conclusion based on. Have you not seen where the majority of road deaths are occurring?
Last edited by human909 on Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21319
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby g-boaf » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:50 pm

human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:Why can't that attitude be applied to cyclist deaths and injuries caused by someone working?
By extension that would apply to all road users injured by somebody working. That opens a can of worms that the authorities don't want to open. Because our roads are dangerous but neither society nor our politicians actually want to the necessary action.
fat and old wrote:What would likely occur is that cycling would be stopped in the interests of health and safety.
What is that conclusion based on. Have you not seen where the majority of road deaths are occurring?
Conclusion based on the usual government responses to anything. Take the easiest and cheapest option, it would be easier to stop cycling, rather than do anything that might upset motorists.

Neddysmith
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:10 am

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby Neddysmith » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:52 pm

g-boaf wrote:Conclusion based on the usual government responses to anything. Take the easiest and cheapest option, it would be easier to stop cycling, rather than do anything that might upset motorists.
Well after all part of risk mitigation is controlling the risk, and part of controlling the risk is eliminating the risk if possible............ :roll: :roll: :roll:

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby fat and old » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:32 pm

Neddysmith wrote:
g-boaf wrote:Conclusion based on the usual government responses to anything. Take the easiest and cheapest option, it would be easier to stop cycling, rather than do anything that might upset motorists.
Well after all part of risk mitigation is controlling the risk, and part of controlling the risk is eliminating the risk if possible............ :roll: :roll: :roll:
Which is exactly why I've always been against ANY application of WHS at all to cycling issues. However, I have two answers.

1. The current system does not work
2. The THC report gives me encouragement that victim blaming may not be applied here.

Geez...if I can be turned around to accept the term victim blaming, and be looking at applying OH&S to our situation anything's possible. It just takes some backbone. Women are doing it with the THC report. The Indigenous folk in the NT have got a good result for cycling. Am I being told that a bunch of priveleged white men can't achieve change? Or is that perhaps part of the problem? Society sees just that, and is loathe to give us anything else except pestilence and hatred?

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: WH&S for cyclists. Is it the way to be heard?

Postby fat and old » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:34 pm

human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:What would likely occur is that cycling would be stopped in the interests of health and safety.
What is that conclusion based on. Have you not seen where the majority of road deaths are occurring?
OI! That wasn't me. Changed attitude here champ!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users