Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Thu May 09, 2013 5:23 pm

MichaelB wrote:Holy Batman ! :shock:

240 pages and people still arguing. :roll:

1st world problems :D

For a while there I was getting worried that we'd never make it to 300 pages. Now we have it in our sights
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

by BNA » Thu May 09, 2013 5:32 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby The zob » Thu May 09, 2013 5:32 pm

Xplora wrote:Zob, fair enough call because employers really are screwed by a very litigious and blameshifting judicial system. But you aren't talking about baseline rights anymore, and it's not a MHL issue afaik.



Au contraire ....... In this case, it IS mhl. Just that the enforcing body is different. Worksafe has much bigger teeth, too

And it's not a "litigious and blameshifting judicial system". It's Occupational Health and Safety. :wink:

Human you're missing my point in your righteous indignation......if Worksafe was to get hold of this issue, there'd be no point in fighting or even arguing it. Been there, done that. I've been rorted by ex-employees for year(s) at a time, to the point where my Worksafe agent sics Worksafe onto them. I'm not saying I'd refuse to employ non-helmet wearing blokes if there were no mhl's out of hand. I'm saying that if they didn't wear helmets I'd take serious industry-based legal advice on the question. What's wrong with due diligence? And as far as right now...with the law as it stands....is concerned? No helmet, no job. Blame me if you really want to....but truth is it's the law. You're not expecting me to take responsibility for someone else's actions are you?

You know you can get the sack for refusing to wear a long seeved shirt on the job in civil construction nowadays? You really think that MHL's are that far a stretch.....and repealable? :shock:
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Thu May 09, 2013 7:50 pm

The zob wrote:Human you're missing my point in your righteous indignation......if Worksafe was to get hold of this issue, there'd be no point in fighting or even arguing it. Been there, done that. I've been rorted by ex-employees for year(s) at a time, to the point where my Worksafe agent sics Worksafe onto them. I'm not saying I'd refuse to employ non-helmet wearing blokes if there were no mhl's out of hand. I'm saying that if they didn't wear helmets I'd take serious industry-based legal advice on the question. What's wrong with due diligence? And as far as right now...with the law as it stands....is concerned? No helmet, no job. Blame me if you really want to....but truth is it's the law. You're not expecting me to take responsibility for someone else's actions are you?


And your ignored my question. Do you ban people from riding motorbikes to work?
human909
 
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wilddemon » Thu May 09, 2013 9:09 pm

human909 wrote:
And your ignored my question. Do you ban people from riding motorbikes to work?


Can you honestly say you don't know the answer to your own question?
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby The zob » Thu May 09, 2013 9:18 pm

human909 wrote:
The zob wrote:Human you're missing my point in your righteous indignation......if Worksafe was to get hold of this issue, there'd be no point in fighting or even arguing it. Been there, done that. I've been rorted by ex-employees for year(s) at a time, to the point where my Worksafe agent sics Worksafe onto them. I'm not saying I'd refuse to employ non-helmet wearing blokes if there were no mhl's out of hand. I'm saying that if they didn't wear helmets I'd take serious industry-based legal advice on the question. What's wrong with due diligence? And as far as right now...with the law as it stands....is concerned? No helmet, no job. Blame me if you really want to....but truth is it's the law. You're not expecting me to take responsibility for someone else's actions are you?


And your ignored my question. Do you ban people from riding motorbikes to work?


I didn't ignore your question. I thought it was rhetorical.

Of course I don't ban people from riding motorcycles; any more than I ban people from riding bicycles :lol:

1. I said

If I had employees that commuted to work they'd either wear a helmet or get another job. Not my ideal situaton, but I'll not take responsibility for someone else


I'd sack them, not ban anybody :wink: Big difference. Basically....I can't make people do what the law says to do, and what's more I'm not paid to nor do I have any interest in doing so. What I can do is protect my business from unnecessary potential Worksafe issues. IF that was the possible consequence of Employee X breaking the law with my knowledge or aquiescence.

2. The danger.....real or percieved in either activity (cycling or moto) is irrelevant. It is merely a question of law and it's interpretation. IF an employee insisted on riding his motorcycle to work, sans helmet, then yes, I'd give him a choice. Job or lifestyle. But realistically that doesn't happen (I actually have 2 employees that ride motorcycles to work, one of whom also alternates that with a bicycle).

There is another question here, as well. Our wok is typically High Risk, and is carried out in work crews of at least 3 men (no...I'm not discriminating :lol: Women welcome to apply). Each person has a well defined position, and each is interchangable with the other. But none are able to be avoided, and each member of that crew relies on the others quite literally to look out for his life. Part of my assessment when considering a new employee is how well they'll fit into the crew and business as a whole. A person who chooses to break the law (MHL scenario) or ride without a helmet (Non MHL scenario) is not going to give me a lot of confidence given our work depends on safety both personal and reciprocal. Again.....we are talking about OH&S here. A subject I take very seriously.

Now, again I have to ask YOU the question

You're not expecting me to take responsibility for someone else's actions are you?
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wilddemon » Thu May 09, 2013 9:45 pm

All good points Mr The zob but I think there is no employer liability for journeys to and from work now, at least in NSW.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ken Ho » Thu May 09, 2013 10:12 pm

Sadly, Zob is clearly not speaking from inexperience.
It just shows how much impact a coercive law like the MHL extends.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby The zob » Thu May 09, 2013 10:39 pm

Ken Ho wrote:Sadly, Zob is clearly not speaking from inexperience.
It just shows how much impact a coercive law like the MHL extends.


Ken....a large part of me speaks from fear. At least where worksafe is concerned. An excellent, absolutely necessary body that can unfortunately be rorted mercilessly by the less scrupulous and that can destroy a small business faster than a speeding bullet :wink: :lol:

Xplora claimed earlier

it's not a MHL issue afaik


And even though in my eyes it's a extension of MHL's, the issue I outline is more than that. When converted to an OH&S issue all concerns are amplified and there is no such thing as an "opinion". This is the legacy of a modern, "enlightened" society that prides itself on equality and opportunity for all. How many people haven't seen a worksafe type ad on TV extolling the virtue :lol: of coming home alive? When the tide began to turn against them, building unions embraced OH&S as the rock upon which to anchor their legitimacy. Ban Shoppies? No worries...yesterday's Shoppy is todays Safety Rep. Computers came on the scene, in order to make our lives easy? Hello RSI :lol: Worksite safety is a behemoth that stands alone in it's all powerful glory, ready and willing to protect us all, rich or poor, smart or dumb. Preferably poor and dumb :wink: The very idea that Safety can be bargained down or lessened in any way is anathema to today's society. And you think that MHL's can be repealed? :shock: :lol: As I asked earlier...who is going to go into a classroom of 8 year olds and tell them that wearing helmets is selfish and not necessary (both common claims here)? I think that opponants of MHL's would do well to treat the issue as one that requires the Safety questions to be addressed and negated, and not as one of personal distaste, an impost on individual freedoms or other such ideas.

Personally...in this society, with the range of political options we have, I can't see that ever happening.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Thu May 09, 2013 11:17 pm

Zob, as an employer you are not responsible for your employees' safety on their journey to or from work. The only possible exception I could see is the one you mentioned about drinking on your premises and having an accident on the way home, that one they could claim you contributed to, but that is more of a comment on the legal system than anything else.

No-one here has said that wearing a helmet is selfish, what is selfish is forcing others to follow your dictates. And, yes, I would go into a classroom of 8 year olds and tell them how safe cycling is and how I, as an 8 year old on roads with less cars but a road toll about 3-4 times what it is now, safely rode around when I was 8 without a helmet and I see no reason why they should be forced to wear one. The fact of the matter is that I would be howled down if I did this today. But, if I did this 40 years ago (when the roads in Victoria were so dangerous 1,000 people died on the roads each year) I would be seen as a cycling advocate and encouraging fitness, physical activity and a healthy lifestyle for our children. But attitudes have changed and MHLs have contributed to this. Cycling is seen as a dangerous way to get around and MHLs are largely responsible for this change in attitude. The effect of MHLs is even more obvious when you consider school children. I ride past two schools and near another on my daily commute and I see no kids riding to school day after day after day.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who supports MHLs is an advocate for reducing the number of people who cycle.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Fri May 10, 2013 12:28 am

The zob wrote:
Of course I don't ban people from riding motorcycles; any more than I ban people from riding bicycles :lol:

1. I said

If I had employees that commuted to work they'd either wear a helmet or get another job. Not my ideal situaton, but I'll not take responsibility for someone else

So why do you consider riding a motorbike to work acceptable but not riding a bicycle without a helmet. Or would you fire people for riding motorbikes? Riding a motorbike is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than riding a bicycle to work without a helmet.

The zob wrote: And you think that MHL's can be repealed? :shock: :lol:

It already has occured partially in Darwin. :idea:

The zob wrote:As I asked earlier...who is going to go into a classroom of 8 year olds and tell them that wearing helmets is selfish

Say What? How the hell do you figure that? Nobody is saying wearing helmets is selfish!

The zob wrote:I think that opponants of MHL's would do well to treat the issue as one that requires the Safety questions to be addressed and negated

The safety questions have been addressed 100s of times. MHLs do no improve safety! Furthermore if comes down to a safety question the real elephant in the room is getting rid of the killing machines, cars! :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ken Ho » Fri May 10, 2013 6:25 am

Ya know, I can argue against MHL's all day, but I think that it is a testament to the bloody-minded ess of human nature how ore all suddenly expects on workplace industrial law, telling Mr Zob he is wrong, when he clearly knows, and needs to know exactly what his rights and obligations are.
Sometimes people, black is actually black, you know.
However, I do see it as part of the larger problem of coercive laws, "gotcha" legal culture and our adversarial legal system.

Another issue is that he needs a certain type of personality to fit his team. No problem there. Sounds like high tension power line work or something
The problem arises whe it is not acknowledged taht a different personality type that does not fit that team, is still valid. For example,, I often work in remote areas where AI am the only doctor, I don't have a team, I have to think on my feet and react quickly to evolving and changing circumstances. sobs team personality type typically sees me as an unreliable maverick, and tries to confine me but I need my style to do what I do.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wilddemon » Fri May 10, 2013 7:40 am

Ken Ho wrote:The problem arises whe it is not acknowledged taht a different personality type that does not fit that team, is still valid. For example,, I often work in remote areas where AI am the only doctor, I don't have a team, I have to think on my feet and react quickly to evolving and changing circumstances. sobs team personality type typically sees me as an unreliable maverick, and tries to confine me but I need my style to do what I do.

Hopefully you don't impose the philosophy in your Sig upon your patients ;)
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Fri May 10, 2013 8:45 am

I'm sorry, Mrs Jones, but your husband didn't survive surgery. On the plus side, you should have seen the epic video of the skydive just before impact, he was going delta until the very end, what a legend!
Xplora
 
Posts: 6635
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Fri May 10, 2013 9:52 am

Ken Ho wrote:Ya know, I can argue against MHL's all day, but I think that it is a testament to the bloody-minded ess of human nature how ore all suddenly expects on workplace industrial law, telling Mr Zob he is wrong, when he clearly knows, and needs to know exactly what his rights and obligations are.


His 'rights and obligation's don't extend to telling people how to get to and from work. If he was talking about people transporting themselves during work hours for work purposes then he would sadly be correct. In fact even sadder, I think in Australia a workplace could make a strong case against ANY bicycle use. :( Naturally things that occur on workplace that AFFECT people getting to and from work such as alcohol or fatigue are relevant. Mr Zob isn't the only person who directly deals with workplace health and safety. :wink:

Relating bicycle MHL to the workplace is a furphy.
human909
 
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby The zob » Fri May 10, 2013 10:18 am

human909 wrote:
The zob wrote:
Of course I don't ban people from riding motorcycles; any more than I ban people from riding bicycles :lol:

1. I said

If I had employees that commuted to work they'd either wear a helmet or get another job. Not my ideal situaton, but I'll not take responsibility for someone else

So why do you consider riding a motorbike to work acceptable but not riding a bicycle without a helmet. Or would you fire people for riding motorbikes? Riding a motorbike is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than riding a bicycle to work without a helmet.



Aye?

Earlier I wrote:2. The danger.....real or percieved in either activity (cycling or moto) is irrelevant. It is merely a question of law and it's interpretation. IF an employee insisted on riding his motorcycle to work, sans helmet, then yes, I'd give him a choice. Job or lifestyle. But realistically that doesn't happen (I actually have 2 employees that ride motorcycles to work, one of whom also alternates that with a bicycle).


What part of this concept are you having difficulties understanding? :lol: It's not a question of safety....it's a question of legal liability. Something that some of you anti-helmet law blokes need to get your head around :wink:

Me wrote:I think that opponants of MHL's would do well to treat the issue as one that requires the Safety questions to be addressed and negated
you wrote:


The safety questions have been addressed 100s of times. MHLs do no improve safety! Furthermore if comes down to a safety question the real elephant in the room is getting rid of the killing machines, cars


You just don't get it aye? :lol: :lol: I thought you were just indulging in a little obfuscation, but maybe your not used to looking beyond the world in front of you?

I'M NOT questioning the "Safety" of wearing a helmet. I'm pointing out that should Worksafe get hold of this then "Safety" issues that you've never even considered will be brought foward, and it would introduce a whole new level of enforcement....the employer. Having an ignorance of how workplace OH&S can operate is fair enough, but revelling in that ignorance in an effort to "win" an argument does little to protect your rights. Do you have any idea of how many people have to wear a hard hat once they step ou of their car....no matter where they are? Electrical industry workers that merely inspect poles at the base? Water industry workers that are looking for a sewer or water point in your front yard? As I pointed out earlier....try working for any reputable company in shorts or a t-shirt these days.....and don't even start thinking about not putting your hi-viz on :wink:

David wrote:Zob, as an employer you are not responsible for your employees' safety on their journey to or from work


Much as I agree with you on a philisophical level, in reality it's an issue.....and if anything it will become greater, not smaller.

You're from Victoria.....think on this. Those Worksafe ads? The ones that are promoting the basic health checks to be given to employees in the employer's workplace during working hours? Here.....

http://www.workhealth.vic.gov.au/

and a quick precis CnP'd from that site

What are they?

There is so much value to be gained from promoting health and wellbeing among your workforce. National research has shown that healthy, engaged employees are nearly three times more productive than employees with poor health. A focus on health and wellbeing in the workplace can help to reduce staff absenteeism and improve retention.

This section aims to help you make positive steps towards implementing health and wellbeing programs, strategies and policies in your workplace. We have provided best practice and evidence-based resources, tools, links and ideas to assist you.

Programs can range from simple, low cost activities such as a 'walk to work' initiative and reimbursement of gym memberships that achieve positive behaviour changes, or more comprehensive programs that impact positively on your organisation as a whole.

Programs can also target specific risk factors that are related to poor health including those which support employees to quit smoking and offering fresh fruit to improve nutrition at work.

See the case studies section for examples of programs that are showing great results for a range of Victorian businesses.


So now an employer is being held responsible for an employee's health vicariously :wink: If an employer is going to reimburse a bloke's gym membership, then insisting on the wearing of a helmet when cycling is no longer such an imposition, aye?

Thin edge of the wedge :wink: :lol:

Hey Human...taken from here.... http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/injurie ... laims.aspx

Journey claims

A worker may be able to make a claim for injuries suffered in the course of most journeys (without significant interruption or diversion) to and from the worker’s:

home (place of abode) and place of employment
home, place of employment and educational institution if it is required for the worker’s employment
home, place of employment and any other place the worker is required to attend for work-related reasons.

A worker will not be able to receive compensation for a journey claim if there is ‘serious and wilful misconduct’ by the worker. For example, if a worker is involved in a motor vehicle accident on the way home from work and is found to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs which contributed to an injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident.


from here... http://workforcelegal.com.au/pages/faq- ... cover.html

Am I covered travelling to and from work?
In most cases, WorkCover does not apply when travelling to and from home and work. There can however be some arguments about when you actually reach work. For example if you fall in a car park, WorkCover may cover you if work controls that car park even though you have not arrived at your workstation. If, however the car park is for general public use, you will be considered as still traveling to work.

There are some circumstances where you can still be covered for an injury that happens when traveling between work and home, if work has contributed to that injury. If a maintenance worker fell asleep, for example, on the way home and ran off the road because he or she had been without sleep for 24 hours due a work emergency, they would be covered


Not absolute....but I didn't claim that, did I? Slater and Gorden are constantly trying to find new ways to cotton wrap the employee.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ken Ho » Fri May 10, 2013 10:25 am

human909 wrote:
Ken Ho wrote:Ya know, I can argue against MHL's all day, but I think that it is a testament to the bloody-minded ess of human nature how ore all suddenly expects on workplace industrial law, telling Mr Zob he is wrong, when he clearly knows, and needs to know exactly what his rights and obligations are.


His 'rights and obligation's don't extend to telling people how to get to and from work. If he was talking about people transporting themselves during work hours for work purposes then he would sadly be correct. In fact even sadder, I think in Australia a workplace could make a strong case against ANY bicycle use. :( Naturally things that occur on workplace that AFFECT people getting to and from work such as alcohol or fatigue are relevant. Mr Zob isn't the only person who directly deals with workplace health and safety. :wink:

Relating bicycle MHL to the workplace is a furphy.


You would be surprised.
In Queensland, travel to and from work is still covered. Sounds to me like Zob has seen the inside of a court room over these issues.
I know places where there are work orders on how to butter bread, literally, because one numb nuts cut himself on a lunch break.
You are probably right, that some people could make a case against anything, including riding a bike to work. I say that sympathetically.
Some employers are refusing to employ men who play rugby league too, because of teh injury rate. I find it hard to fault that thinking.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Fri May 10, 2013 10:34 am

The zob wrote:Do you have any idea of how many people have to wear a hard hat once they step ou of their car....

Often I do. Not to mention safety glasses, hivis, steel caps. Stop acting like you are the only person who has dealt with safety in the workplace.

The zob wrote:It's not a question of safety....it's a question of legal liability.

Legally liable for what? You can't be liable without the duty of care. In Victoria that does not extend to after work hours unless it directly related to actions within work hours, eg alohol & fatigue, injury from work, etc. :wink:

Ken Ho wrote:You would be surprised.
In Queensland, travel to and from work is still covered.

But not in Victoria. :wink: Either way this discussion isn't about workcover and work health and safety. I'm really not sure its relevance the only reason it came up was that Zob is in the belief that he fire people for the basis of their method of getting to work.
human909
 
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri May 10, 2013 10:53 am

human909 wrote:
The zob wrote:It's not a question of safety....it's a question of legal liability.

Legally liable for what? You can't be liable without the duty of care. In Victoria that does not extend to after work hours unless it directly related to actions within work hours, eg alohol & fatigue, injury from work, etc. :wink:

Ken Ho wrote:You would be surprised.
In Queensland, travel to and from work is still covered.

But not in Victoria. :wink: Either way this discussion isn't about workcover and work health and safety. I'm really not sure its relevance the only reason it came up was that Zob is in the belief that he fire people for the basis of their method of getting to work.


Shrug. There are plenty of no-fault workers' comp systems, so the claim that there is no liability without (breach of the?) duty of care isn't correct. Some pretty whacky stuff has gone on with OHS laws and zob's evident wish not to be a test case is eminently reasonable, in my non-expert opinion. 'Course, IANAL, best regard me as a fool or a liar, etc etc.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby The zob » Fri May 10, 2013 11:09 am

human909 wrote:
The zob wrote:Do you have any idea of how many people have to wear a hard hat once they step ou of their car....

Often I do. Not to mention safety glasses, hivis, steel caps. Stop acting like you are the only person who has dealt with safety in the workplace.



Then stop acting like you have no knowledge of the possibilties here :wink: Look....you're the one who wants to present cycling as a safe activity that doesn't require a helmet. Instead of acting as though you have all the answers and that you are the sole arbitrator of where the issue starts and ends wouldn't you be better off addressing all possibilities? You seem to forget that I don't support MHL's :wink: .....but you are still intent on making me responsible for your choices.

It's just a discussion....one that I've never thought of before so new thoughts are coming daily. Hence the questions and hypotheses :D

btw....I think you made the statement that I want to fire people based on their method of getting to work. That's not correct. Any action I take would be based on the legal liabilities that I am open to. What you're accusing me of is discrimination. That's a disgusting thing to accuse a person of, and something I take very seriously. Please don't do that again. If I'm wrong, then fair enough.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Summernight » Fri May 10, 2013 12:21 pm

The thing with employees is they can sting you either way - OH&S/WorkSafe for anything that could happen during work hours and, if you terminate their employment (be it a legitimate termination or otherwise), the bad (or even good) eggs will sue via unfair dismissal or unlawful termination etc. Thus necessitating you rocking up to whatever tribunal/court is the current flavour of the day and wasting time and money fighting the claim.

If you mandated the use of wearing a helmet to get to your workplace (irrespective if that is the law or not) and fired someone for not doing so I'm pretty sure the employee is going to stick it to you and you'll find yourself in court.

And even if you're insured sometimes the insurer decides to be stupid and not stump up either, even if it is clearly within the policy.

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not an employer.
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ken Ho » Fri May 10, 2013 1:17 pm

How do I know what state Zob is in, apart from a state of reasonable debate ?
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Summernight » Fri May 10, 2013 1:26 pm

Ken Ho wrote:How do I know what state Zob is in, apart from a state of reasonable debate ?


Familiarity with each other and the use of the same usernames on the BV forums. :wink:
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Fri May 10, 2013 1:41 pm

I wasn't the one trying to apply work safety a discussion on MHL for bicycles. Nor do I think they have much to do with it. I was simply responding to you comment. But now it seems you have retracted it. :roll:

The zob wrote:I think you made the statement that I want to fire people based on their method of getting to work. That's not correct.

Yet earlier you said...
The zob wrote:If I had employees that commuted to work they'd either wear a helmet or get another job. Not my ideal situaton, but I'll not take responsibility for someone else. Not with Worksafe.

So if somebody chose as their method of getting to work cycling without a helmet....

Anyway I'm done with debating workplace laws. I absolutely agree that Workplace laws have overstretched and are ridiculously insane. I've had no disagreements there. But that isn't a discussion for this thread.
human909
 
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Fri May 10, 2013 1:52 pm

human,
zob is totally within his expertise and reasonable on this issue - assuming a repealed MHL. it's all a bit hypothetical and fighty under the current situation because an employer would have a case to stand by if someone started to ride home without a helmet or without a seatbelt on and they did nothing to prevent that from happening. Contributory negligence, no different to booze. Doesn't make it right... but that's OHS laws for you lol
Xplora
 
Posts: 6635
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri May 10, 2013 2:31 pm

Xplora wrote:human,
zob is totally within his expertise and reasonable on this issue - assuming a repealed MHL. it's all a bit hypothetical and fighty under the current situation because an employer would have a case to stand by if someone started to ride home without a helmet or without a seatbelt on and they did nothing to prevent that from happening. Contributory negligence, no different to booze. Doesn't make it right... but that's OHS laws for you lol


I don't quite know what you mean by "no different to booze" but this whole statement seems at odds with the High Court's decision in CAL v Scott [2009] HCA 47.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mr Roboto



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers