Cycling in work car parks

[Lucretzia]

Hi, this is my first post so apologies if this is the wrong place or if this topic has been covered before!

I cycle to work. It's the CS I work for. They've been very good offering bikes to buy over time, supplying a 'wet room' and a shiny new
bike shed.

However, recently we've been banned from cycling in the car park. We have to 'dismount' and walk across the car park for 'our own safety'.

The few (very few) cyclists think this is pretty unfair but due to the fact there are so few of us our complaints are ignored.

If we're caught cycling in the car park we end up being banned from using it!

This seems very unfair and prejudiced against cyclists when I'd have thought that cyclists should be encouraged.

I just wondered if anyone here had any experience of this!

 

[teletext45]

You can understand their logic, car parts can be dangerous places so it seems the decision was made in your interest.

Don't think it's worth arguing about it to be honest...

Andy

 

[classic33]

If its unsafe to ride in the carpark, I take it that there's no-one walking in it either. This on the basis that "cycling in the car park" is being done to get to & from the bike shed from the point of entry/exit.

How many of those driving have to get out & push their cars in the car park as opposed to driving them?

 

[Keith Oates]

I think that if the management have provided a shed to park the bikes and facilities to dry wet gear they can't be considered as anti bike, so I would not upset the applecart by complaining about have to push the bike across the carpark. They have their reasons so just follow the request!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[G-Zero]

Without seeing the layout of the carpark, whether or not it's illuminated or is correctly painted, with painted bays and recognised traffic flow etc., It's obviously a Health & Safety issue, either for the safety of cyclists amongst the cars, or for the pedestrians amongst the cycles, or even a bit of both.

Either way, for the facilities being provided, it's a small price to pay.

 

[CopperCyclist]

It's a stupid rule. It's no less safe to cycle in the car park than it is to drive, if done correctly.

That said, you have facilities that would be envied by some of your fellow posters on here, so I'd suggest sticking to the rules. They can't ban you for trying to challenge the rules, but you will lose your facilities if you ignore them.

Take the good with the bad and go with it.

 

[apollo179]

Health and safety. Not surprising that they have the rule so much as they can be bothered to enforce it. So long as they do then you have no choice but to obey. Credit to them for providing the facilities btw.

 

[yello]

I'm with everyone else here. It's perhaps a daft rule (and maybe even a bit of 'car power' at play) but I'd just be inclined to go with it given all your employers have done for cyclists.

I would however have it noted (if such a thing is possible) that you don't agree with the reasoning behind the decision but are prepared to accept it in the name of, um, something or other, and in recognition of all your employers have done.

Deliberately ignoring the request is just a recipe for pissing people off and getting facilities withdrawn. Sometimes you play the game.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

The company may well think its a daft rule

I can cycle through my car park even though it is also a lorry loading and unloading bay

No-one has ever been injured or been close to being injured however the company was made to install barriers between the car parking spaces and wall, and paint marked footways, repaint all car parking bay markings etc

I have escaped notice and any rulings as I'm the only cyclist - if there were more of us then I daresay the same rule would have been implemented

The upshot of it is that if anyone is injured by walking outside of the painted walkways, then they can be shown to be negligent and at least partly at fault in the event of any accident

It wasn't the company that put these rules in place, it was a combination of the Insurance company covering liability and the HSE

Perhaps its similar at your work and they may think it's daft but if they don't enforce it, they will be held liable for a "failure to ensure safe conditions" or some other such nonsense that the insurance can get out of paying with

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I'm normally all for a pragmatic approach but I can't get my head round the idea that the car park is safe for cars and it's safe for walkers but not for cyclists. Or the idea that walkers must be protected from cyclists but not from cars.

The unconscious assumption seems to be that cyclists are something in between cars and pedestrians and their place is, logically, either in the gutter between pavement and road or nowhere at all.

Still, if you deprive people from food for long enough, they'll end up grateful for crumbs.

 

[benb]

I'd ask to see a copy of the risk assessment where this was concluded as necessary.

It's almost certainly nothing to do with the HSE.

 

[Mozzy]

As an ex Chartered Elf n Safety practitioner, I can guarantee it is based on that aspect. Quite incorrect of course , just another useless blame on H&S when at the end of the day the 'company' concerned does not want anyone suing them for improper/lack of duty of care to employees, and visitors. Next it will be push your car in and out just in case you happen to bump into someone …. sigh.

I never did conform, I took a common sense approach almost always, managed to be made redundant for said CS attitude.

Mozzy

 

[apollo179]

I'm normally all for a pragmatic approach but I can't get my head round the idea that the car park is safe for cars and it's safe for walkers but not for cyclists. Or the idea that walkers must be protected from cyclists but not from cars.

The unconscious assumption seems to be that cyclists are something in between cars and pedestrians and their place is, logically, either in the gutter between pavement and road or nowhere at all.

Still, if you deprive people from food for long enough, they'll end up grateful for crumbs.

Trying to see the issue from beyond a blinkered cycling bias - walkers are protected from cars by having special walking areas provided for them separating them physically from potentail danger - pedestrian paths. Car parks are for cars. Cycle parks are for cycles - if health and safety prohibits cycling in the car designated area and the employer is unable to provide a cycle specific route then access is a problem. Where do you wheel the bike ? through the car park which is still going to be dangerous or on the pedestrian walkway that is going to be potentially dangerous to pedestrians. Nightmare for the h&s guys.

 

[fossyant]

To be honest, just abide by it. It would get very messy if a stupid driver pulled out of a space and hit a bike as it zoomed past - just saves some agro. The H&S elf at it again !

 

[Hip Priest]

It's a daft rule, but take it on the chin and be thankful for the facilities you have. My company doesn't let me park in the car park, so I have to ride an old tank and leave it in the street.