Royal Mail Forces Postmen to wear Helmets

Royal Mail Forces Postmen to wear Helmets

An offer of support to Britain’s largest cycling workforce from the national cyclists’ organisation

"We posties need a voice with clout. Let me, as a ground roots postie, tell how this was introduced. I know of no postie who was asked by the union or Royal Mail if they wanted helmets. We were not consulted … we were told it was compulsory to wear them or we would be disciplined under Royal Mail's Code of Conduct i.e. wear them or risk losing your job. We were also told that managers would be checking on their patrols to see if we were wearing them. We were never given our legal right to choose."

Dear postal worker

Many of you have contacted us lately about Royal Mail’s new rules requiring all staff to wear helmets when cycling for work. At a time of growing pressure from several sources to make all cyclists wear helmets, CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation, wishes to offer whatever support we can to the UK’s largest cycling workforce, who are already facing this threat head-on. One worker has already been sacked for not wearing a helmet, despite medical evidence that this would cause problems.

The reasons why Royal Mail (RM) and the Communications Workers Union (CWU) backed the new rules may have been well-intentioned, but we also believe they were deeply misguided. We would stress that CTC is not "anti-helmet" – we support people’s right to choose either way, based on reliable, balanced evidence about the possible benefits of helmets and their limitations. However, we also believe that enforced helmet-wearing is not justified, either in practice or in law. Our reasons are set out below.

We wish to question the advice in an as-yet unpublished report commissioned by Royal Mail, which led to them adopt this helmet rule. We want to know whether it considered the following issues:

Why is there no evidence of any link between increased helmet-wearing with improved cycle safety?
Whether enforced helmet-wearing is any better justified for cyclists than for pedestrians or drivers?
What liabilities might the employer incur by enforcing helmet-wearing on its cycling workforce?
Whether employers are legally entitled to require staff to wear helmets for cycling on public roads?

Meanwhile, we want to hear from you, so you can tell us your experiences of how the new rule is working in practice, and we can keep you informed as we pursue the legal and evidence questions above. We have therefore set up a support and information line for cycling postal workers. We want to know:

Were you balloted or consulted before the decision to bring in the helmet rule?
Were you told about the limitations to the effectiveness of cycle helmets?
What stance have local managers and union officials taken on the issue?
How strictly is your local management seeking to enforce the rule in your area?
What proportion of postal workers are riding with helmets?
Have you or anyone you know faced actual or threatened disciplinary action for not wearing a helmet?

So please, do get in touch with us! You can either post back the form or send us your contact details via the phone number or email address given below. We will call back at your convenience to talk through various questions such as those listed above.

Please feel free to copy and distribute this letter to colleagues. Or if you would like us to send you more copies, please let us know how many you require. We look forward to hearing from you.

****************************************************************************************************************

Return to: Postal workers’ information line, CTC, 69 Meadrow, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 3HS

Phone: 01483 520756. Fax: 0870 873 0064. Email: postal.workers@ctc.org.uk.

Name ______________________________

Address_______________________________________

____________________ Postcode ____________

Phone No(s) (please state preferred times to be called) __________________

__________________________________________________________________

If you would like copies of this letter to give to colleagues, please state number ____

HEAD FACTS

It takes 21,000 years of average cycling to suffer a fatality, and 3,000 years to suffer a clinically serious head injury, let alone one that might be preventable by wearing a helmet.
There are no known cases where increased helmet-wearing has ever led to a reduction in either the risk or severity of cyclists’ injuries. Indeed, surprising as it may seem, there are some cases where the opposite appears to have happened:

In the USA, where helmets have been strongly promoted (with compulsion either for children or for all cyclists in certain counties and states), the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets increased from 18% to 50% between 1991 and 2001. However, this coincided not only with a 21% reduction in cycle use but also a 10% increase in the absolute number of head injuries for cyclists, amounting to a 40% increase in head injury rates for those who continue to cycle.
In Western Australia, cycle use fell by 30-60% after cycle helmets were made compulsory in 1991, whereas cyclists’ head injuries reduced by only 11-21%. By 2000, cycle use was still 10-20% below its pre-law levels, yet the cyclist proportion of all people hospitalised by serious road crash injuries rose in this period from 17% to 26% – indicating that the risk of serious injury for cyclists had increased by around one-third.
Similar findings have been observed not only in countries where helmet laws have been passed (New Zealand, Canada) but also where it has risen voluntarily. For instance, helmet-wearing in London has risen from near-zero in the mid 1980s to around 50% today – well above the national average. There has been no detectable improvement in cycle safety relative to previous trends – these have tracked the trend for pedestrian injuries both before and after helmet-wearing started to become commonplace. The one difference since then is that, unlike pedestrians, the proportion of cyclists’ injuries which are fatal or serious has actually increased.

The lack of evidence linking increased helmet use and improved cycle safety does not necessary mean this link does not exist. However it does suggest that the protective value of helmets can only be limited at best. This is hardly surprising – helmets are only designed to withstand an impact speed of 12mph, equivalent to falling to the ground from a stationary riding position.
If the benefits of helmets IN THE EVENT of a head impact are (at best) limited, these could easily be eroded if helmeted riders are also more likely to suffer a head impact IN THE FIRST PLACE. There are several possible explanations why this may be the case, backed up by a good deal of evidence. One is the possibility that, as people feel better protected, they take greater risks. This could be dangerous if their faith in helmets is misguided. Other possibilities relate to the increase in the effective size or weight or the head. For instance, a helmet could turn what would otherwise have been a near-miss into a rotational force impact, of the kind which is the most common cause of serious brain injury.
This makes it all the more important not to overstate the case for helmet-wearing and to adopt a balanced, evidence-based approach to the issue.
If it were justified to make cyclists wear helmets, the case for requiring pedestrians and vehicle occupants to wear them would be much stronger, as this would save at least 12.5 times as many lives.
The Health and Safety Executive has stated, "Cycle helmets used on the public highway are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at work regulations. This means that it would be very hard for an employer to force an employee to wear a cycle helmet on health and safety grounds."

The statement continued, "HSE has no remit to dictate the uniform policy of a company unless it falls within the scope of PPE. Ultimately the wearing of cycle helmets is a matter on individual choice, and any stance to the contrary could potentially be challenged on human rights grounds. With regards to the use of cycle helmets on the public roads by members of the public, this is a policy area that falls totally within the remit of the Department for Transport."

Contact CTC for a briefing sheet setting out our stance on helmet compulsion and helmet promotion campaigns; or download this from www.ctc.org.uk/working/HELMETS.aspx.

Top