Green Transport Specialist Bans Employees from Bikes
by Christine Lepisto, Berlin 
on 07. 7.07
Save us from our own best intentions! Jacobs, one of the UK's leading consultants in sustainable transport, is banning biking for its own employees. The Times Online reports the text of the memo to all employees in which the company's health and safety manager says:
It’s patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely affected than if you were in a car. The reason for this policy is to protect our employees from other vehicles on the road.
There will be a few limited exceptions when employees will be permitted to travel by bicycle, but that would be when that mode of transport is required to undertake the job, for example, carrying out surveys along river banks and tow paths.
What could be behind such a dramatic measure? And is it the right attitude for a company which is a key advisor to Transport for London (TfL), which targets to get five times more people onto bikes by 2025?
From Jacobs' own website:
- Jacobs has grown to become one of the UK’s leading consultants providing advice and support to public and private sector organisations in transport planning and traffic engineering.
Jacobs acknowledges in the e-mailed memo that the new bike policy “could be construed as being at odds with our environmental policy and the requirement to be environmentally responsible” and “will not please our environmentally friendly clients”.
Some employees are reported to believe the change has something to do with Jacob's insurance policies. Not mentioned in the Times article is the aspect of worker health and safety laws, which do require that companies maintain a safe workplace. Traffic accidents during working time are reportable just as a sawmill accident or coalmine accident would be. In some European countries, even accidents during the employee's commute to and from the workplace count against the company's performance in workplace safety.
But this does not excuse Jacobs. This is a company with pull (₤6 million in contracts with TfL in 2006). Additionally, Jacob's stated mission includes to "provide expert and up-to-the-minute advice on cycle and pedestrian strategy and travel planning". Jacobs should be throwing its weight behind cyclist safety training and safer cycling infrastructure. They should even be going beyond that to advocate sensible and balanced insurance and regulatory policies which recognize the long-term health benefits of cycling that offset the accident risks.
A spokesman for Transport for London said:
We find the attitude of Jacobs bizarre and we will be urging them to rethink this decision. TfL is committed to encouraging Londoners to get on their bikes whenever and wherever possible. Our serious investment in growing cycling has seen journeys by bike on soar by 83 per cent since 2000. The number of number of cyclists killed or seriously injured has fallen by 28 per cent since the mid to late 1990s.
What a step backwards from promising progress made in cities like Berlin and programs like the UK Center for Alternative Technology's Cycle to Work program. We here at TreeHugger predict the people at Jacobs will come to their senses shortly and retract this ridiculous policy.
Via ::Times Online
Via ::ski-epic, thanks Warren
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Surf Green with Eco-Friendly Surf Gear
- Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: Sustainable Fish Fry
- Sustainable Bamboo Exercise Gear is Here!
- Forget about Pills: Eat Away A Bad Mood!
- 8 Ways Laughter Can Help You Naturally Improve Your Health and Lose Weight
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
The UK's leading consultants in sustainable transport HA, whats sustainable obout not using a bicycle?
If your company policy is about highlighting the dangers of cycling then why are you not helping to solve the problem rather than ignore it.
I have given up my car for a bicycle and use trains to go long distances, if trains made more effort to cater for this market then more people would cycle, if more employers made provisions for cyclist cycling to work then more people would cycle.
Your not at odd with YOUR environmental policy your at odds with OUR environmental Policy!!!!
Yes. It's the insurance carrier. Probably contract negotiation time and they want a better deal. Imagine how the committed employees feel.
I believe Treehugger and other critics of this decision might be asking too much of this one firm or any one firm in terms of bicycle policy...especially using of bicycles DURING WORK HOURS ON COMPANY BUSINESS. You cannot plead with one small, not very wealthy, firm to singlehandedly transform liability laws just because either you or they have green principles.
In our current car and truck dominated streets, companies who support bicycling would either need to create a joint liability fund of some kind or, more probably, the city or town itself would need to assume some form of liability for bicycle safety. It would be difficult to find an insurance company who would underwrite this kind of policy unless it had state guarantees of some kind or every street would need to have a bike lane with sturdy metal railing on at least the traffic side if not on the pedestrian side as well.
All of this requires a movement with realistic goals, substantial investments in street fixtures, and policymakers who are willing and/or able to implement changes in policy and infrastructure. It doesn't require one firm to put its financial neck on the line for the sake of principle.
==auth. note==
Maybe you are right and we've got this one wrong: what if Jacobs has DELIBERATELY created this policy to provoke the powers that be to sit up and listen?? Next move: Transport for London.
If not, we stand by the policy of "asking too much," especially from leaders in the field.
such hypocrisy!
Christine,
Too often in the press or on a blog, people are trying to find the nearest "bad guy" and evaluating the people or companies in a moral way. In the case of bicycle liability it is often difficult to find a "bad guy" near the scene of the accident as our streets AND sidewalks are not well designed for the co-mingling of cars, pedestrians AND bicycles. I don't think the consulting company is a "bad guy" or even necessarily hypocritical: they want to have an insurance policy they can afford and employees that are alive and safe.
I think there is a choice between three alternatives: Either
1) the government accepts liability for bicycle related accidents or subsidizes private insurance
2) Riding a bicycle is legally, entirely "at the rider's risk" even when required or virtually required, by an employer.
3) Authorities would undertake a massive design challenge of insulating bicycle traffic on streets with plus 20mph/35kph traffic from both pedestrians and traffic thereby reducing the cost of insuring bicyclists. This would take space away from vehicles and street level public transportation but might be doable depending on public will.
If this firm is focused on "sustainable transport" there are a lot of constituencies involved, only one of which is bicyclists and bicycling. There has not yet been a sustainable transport plan worked out that pleases everybody as there are numerous conflicts to be worked out between different groups. They or the city government of London only have so much money and political capital to expend in favor of one or the other sustainable issue...if they go all out for bicyclists, something and someone else will in all probability will be left out of the picture
check the statistics. bikes have a very high accident rate per passenger mile. Depending on how you count accidents, they may be more dangerous than motorcycles. They also carry an additional "health benefit" in the form of genital nerve and vascular damage. Ignoring gentle numbness (and you should never ever be numb down here) will lead to permanent damage which in turn leads to loss of sex life. Is going green truly worth that?
Solutions: ride a recumbent that has you sitting upright or a motor scooter. Changing your upright bicycle seat might give temporary relief but the design of a bicycle seat is inherently flawed and outright hostile to male physiology. Remember, no numbness should ever come from riding a bicycle bee it your hands, your arms, or your genitals. Don't rationalize it away by saying it's gone relatively quickly. By the time it isn't gone relatively quickly, you are damaged.
It seems you all subscribe to the presupposition that cycling must be more dangerous than driving. The statistics most often used to "prove" that is the case, normally compares apples and oranges. According to "Cycling the way ahead for towns and cities", for young adults it appears to be safer to bike than drive a car. (Remember that speed kills - also drivers ) And in customary comparioson of safety of bikes and cars, a per kilometer rating is used. However, usng a per trip base, the picture changes dramaticaly in favour of cycling. And as was mentioned , training and experience plays a major role for the individual cyclists' safety.
The Norwegian Institue for Transport economics calculated that society saves more than 30 000 NOK ( about 3600 Euros) yearly on each cyclist. A siseable chnk of that was the savings by enployers, because sick-leaves days are fewer.
"It’s patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely affected"
So it's not patently obvious to them that you can get struck while walking or crossing the road as well? Maybe they should ban employees from talking a walk too.
What kind of idiots are running that company?
"what if Jacobs has DELIBERATELY created this policy to provoke the powers that be"
That's expecting too much from them. I think they are just incompetent fools.
bikes have a very high accident rate per passenger mile.
This is ridiculous. Of course they have. They travel short distances. Duh.
country mouse, can you provide any links to real statistics about the supposed danger of cycling? Also, isn't the study about male impotence and cycling to which you allude generally thought to be invalid?
Also, it seems strange that if you believe cycling among automobiles to be dangerous, you'd recommend riding a recumbent where you are lower and less visible.