Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[wilddemon]

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

[Xplora]

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!

[human909]

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.

Relating bicycle MHL to the workplace is a furphy.

[The zob]

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

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?

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? 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

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

You just don't get it aye? 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

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/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 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

Hey Human...taken from here.... http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/injurie ... laims.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

[Ken Ho]

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.

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.

[human909]

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.

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.

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

But not in Victoria. 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.

[high_tea]

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.

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

But not in Victoria. 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.

[The zob]

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 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 .....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

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.

[Summernight]

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.

[Ken Ho]

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

[Summernight]

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.

[human909]

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.

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...

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.

[Xplora]

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

[high_tea]

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.

[human909]

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 am arguing that this is not the case. Well not anymore than an employee driving a old corolla home without airbags. Of course we can hypothetically consider anything, and nobody can say for certain as laws change and evolve.

An employers duty of care would not normally extend to a employee riding his bike home. Nor is the employer otherwise liable outside of work hours. Now I can't say for certain, nor can even experts in the field of workplace laws. A few decades ago if you injured yourself while having sex nobody would have thought that was a workplace compensation issue.
(But all this has successfully distracted the discussion into legalese debate concerning a hypothetical.)

[The zob]

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.

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...

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.

It has nothing to do with how they get to work. It's a question of whether they were obeying the law doing so and whether or not I knew about it. No different to a motorcyclist who rides off without a helmet. Sheesh

And yes....it's hypothetical. A fact that I've been at pains to bring your attention too.

Now I can't say for certain, nor can even experts in the field of workplace laws. A few decades ago if you injured yourself while having sex nobody would have thought that was a workplace compensation issue

Thank you. You seem to be understanding what I'm getting at....the constantly evolving nature of OH&S laws and the need for society to hold somebody....anybody.....responsible. 5 years ago would anyone have expected to see a disabilty care system that is "custom fit to the individual" at any cost? Why would any government commit billions of dollars in an open ended promise to support every single disabled person in the country repeal a law that protects our young from head injuries? (Before you go off.....remember that you and others that are anti MHL's are in the minority. People who are "Meh" about it all...like me.....don't count here. And it's all about perception ). You can claim that this isn't a discussion for this thread all you like, but that won't change reality

ooo ooo btw......You're not expecting me to take responsibility for someone else's actions are you?

[Ross]

Regarding the compo while having sex thing...at first glance this does seem ridiculous but when you look into it more (no pun intended) it does seem fair and makes sense. I can't remember the exact scenario but I believe it was a (female?) employee that had to go interstate for a conference or similar type event and then in the evening met with some other non-employee and had sex in the hotel room and while doing so the light fitting fell off the wall and hit the employee on the head. So the employee was required to be in a hotel room because they were attending the conference during the day. They were going about doing normal lawful things that consenting adults do, similar to sleeping or playing cards or having a shower or a million other things. So because this was essentially a work function, or that their work required them to stay overnight, they were covered by workers comp. If they weren't at the conference they wouldn't need to be in the hotel, they would be at home, and therefore responsible for their own actions, nothing to do with the employer.

I do think that the hotel should of been made to pay at least some of the cost back to the workers comp company, after all it was a light fitting in their hotel room that was unsafe and fell off the wall. Maybe the hotel could then try and make a claim against their maintenance company (presuming they have a company that does this and not just a handyman employed by the them) as they should of noticed the light fitting was loose. Maybe too the employee contributed to the incident by bumping the bed against the wall while they were having sex.

[Ross]

Getting back on topic now...I had a quick look and couldn't see this posted anywhere - http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/05/ar ... lmet-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Richard Branson was let off with a warning recently by Adelaide police for riding his bike without a helmet.

My personal view, even though I'm pro HL, is that it was a fair decision to let him off with a warning because he claimed he didn't know that Australia had MHL.

[Ken Ho]

Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

[jcjordan]

Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

Gee mate I hope the next time you need the police they are not around to do there job.

[wilddemon]

Yeah I thought a pretty ordinary summary of the plod too. But I suppose there are people that think the same of ED staff so what goes around...

[Ken Ho]

Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

Gee mate I hope the next time you need the police they are not around to do there job.

Don't get me started on that one.

[CatCanRide]

I don't think the cops had a choice of giving Richard Branson a fine for riding without a helmet. Could you imagine the outrage if he had just been warned by them? Cops go easy on rich well known identity but fine the little guys?
If he had been some unknown average Joe Bloe tourist they probably just would have given a warning and let him go.
Cops do a really difficult horrible job often in very confronting circumstances. I wouldn't want to be a copper the job is too bloody tough. I hate to think what our society would be like if we didn't have the coppers out there keeping an eye on things.

[high_tea]

Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

Hey, why not a visionary daredevil exception to the MHLs? Careful drafting would no doubt be required to make sure it didn't also apply to deranged idiots, but okay, it makes at least as much sense as the claim that MHLs are somehow discriminatory. Although, I think that laws to keep daredevil visionaries safe when they're doing mundane stuff are even more important than for Reg'lar Folk. If a daredevil visionary dies jumping a skateboard across a live volcano they were doing what they loved, etc etc. If they die Elvis-fashion on the toilet, that's extra tragic and should be avoided at all costs.



/sarcasm

EDIT: John Paul Stapp was a daredevil visionary and an early promoter of mandatory seatbelts. Discuss.

[Ross]

Back off-topic to the sex compo thing - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-10/p ... rt/4682702" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The High Court has agreed to hear a case involving a public servant who is claiming compensation for an injury she received while having sex on a work trip.
Insurer Comcare is challenging the woman's entitlement to compensation.
She was hurt when a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex in a motel room in regional New South Wales.
She had travelled to the town as part of her job for a Federal Government agency.
Comcare initially allowed the claim, but then reversed the decision.
After a long legal battle, the full bench of the Federal Court eventually ruled the woman was entitled to the claim because she was injured at accommodation where her employer had encouraged her to stay.
Comcare is challenging that, asking the High Court to clarify whether the Federal Court's ruling was sufficient in determining what falls within the course of employment.