Doctors prescribe public buses trains, bikes and feet for employers
A couple of years ago the New Zealand Medical Journal pointed out that driving to work can be a bit of a dangerous activity:
Commuting deaths are a significant fraction of all work-related injury deaths. Traffic-related deaths make up the largest group of work-related deaths (about 30%), and of these 44% occur while commuting.”
Ok, so no surprise there, likewise this from the same article;
In comparison with more active modes of transport (public transport, cycling and walking), commuting by car can result in a chronic reduction in physical activity, deterioration in air quality for the whole community, and significant stress for some. The relationships between low levels of exercise and obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease are well known and are generating considerable concern. The health effects of traffic-related air pollution have also been estimated in New Zealand and account for more deaths than traffic crashes in Aucklanders over 30 years of age. While the current urban environment requires car ownership to access many vital social services, the severance effects of heavy traffic on neighbourhoods, and the isolative nature of car commuting result in a reduction in social connectedness for many.
The interesting and challenging statement though is the recognition of ‘the joint responsibility of employers and employees for the trip to work’. Employers who care about occupational health and safety may want to think what support they are giving to their staff to ensure they are able to make healthy choices to get to and from work. You wouldn’t expect employers to hold their employees’ hands on the way to work, but it seem reasonable that employees should have greater ability and support to travel to work in a healthier, safer way. Might that mean facilities for cyclists, being located near public transport hubs and within walking distance of affordable housing, as well as working with staff to find out what their commuting needs are.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Is my employer also responcible for what i eat, so that i dont get fat and develop health problems?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
“Is my employer also responcible for what i eat, so that i dont get fat and develop health problems?”
Not necessarily, but responsible and insightful employers realise that a healthy workforce is a productive one, and will at the very least help supply some healthy options, and often subsidise gym membership, massage etc. Likewise, they should realise that locating in an isolated office park where commuting by car is the only options and where there are limited local amenities might not be the best way to attract healthy and motivated employees.
A positive example is the new Meridian HQ. The original plans included a basement carpark, but that was scrapped in favour of secure bike racks (which seemed well used when I walked past just now) - I don’t think that would have been possible if it were somewhere like the Hutt rather than in the Wellington CBD. There are plenty of innovative energy-saving features in the building, but its central location is just as important.
My own fitness is about to be challenged by my employer moving too close to my home, rather than too far away! Currently, the 15 minutes walk each way is a good base level of exercise, but when that becomes two minutes I’m going to have to go out of my way to get fit. Perhaps I’ll just have to walk around the block a few times rather than going straight there.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:49 pm
># Nick C Says:
>November 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Is my employer also responcible for what i eat, so that i dont get fat and develop health problems?
Yes, if your employer’s actions impact on your ability to choose healthy food. This is probably only the case if you live in a remote construction or mining town where your employer owns the only grocery store.
If, like most people you are free to choose your own food, then of course your employer is not responsible for your diet.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
“The interesting and challenging statement though is the recognition of ‘the joint responsibility of employers and employees for the trip to work’.”
So frog talks about the employers ‘responsibility’ for how employees get to work. Given your last comment kahikatea (which i agree with) and also given that people have the right and ability to choose how they get to work do you then disagree with the above quote?
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 am
Frog asks - “Might that mean facilities for cyclists, being located near public transport hubs and within walking distance of affordable housing” If safety is the sole objective then no responsible employer would do any of those things.
According to the 2006 census 2.4% of travel to work was made by bicycle and 6.6% by walking or jogging. LTSA stats for the years 2002-2005 reveal that of the road deaths that occurred between 7am-9am & 5pm-5pm Mon-Fri 3.4% were cyclists and 14% were pedestrians. The 24/7 percents are 2.7 and 11.8. For reported injuries the percents for cyclists are 13.8 (7.2) and for pedestrians 11.8 (9.6). More importantly for commuter safety these hours account for 12.5% of cycle fatalities and 29% of injured cyclists, 12% & 18% respectively for pedestrians. This difference between the injury and fatality percents is consistent with reduced average vehicle speeds during these hours. (When average vehicle speeds increase the number of minor, serious and fatal injuries increase by the 2nd, 3rd & 4th powers respectively of the speed increase.)
The authors of the MOT air pollution study cautioned against direct comparisons of the number of crash deaths and air pollution deaths. The former is restricted to death within 30 days as a direct result of injuries sustained in a crash, the latter includes all premature death attributable to motorvehicle pollution. Premature deaths attributable to crashes could be several thousand a year. The second reason for being cautious in comparing the number of deaths is because the number of years of life lost needs to be considered, this is estimated at 30 years for crashes and 30 days for air pollution.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Nick C,
I am interested in how you frame your argument here.
I agree with you that strictly speaking it is not an employer’s “responsibility” as to how employees get to work, anymore than what they eat is.
The argument I took from the quotes Frog put up were that a bit of self- interest at least, might make employers look a bit more closely at this area.
Quite apart from “responsibility” and “self-interest” though…why can’t people simply be able to express an interest and desire to improve the welfare of others? You seem to be expressing a rather narrow minimalist and legalistic way of looking at what employers can/can’t should/shouldn’t do.
Besides, that mythological beast the “free market” suggests that if an employee doesn’t want to have to walk to their workplace, they won’t take a job there. The same way that someone who doesn’t want to drive to a workplace in an office park in the industrial wastelands wouldn’t take a job that required it.
jingyang
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Jingjang: There are a number of ways i could have argued this post, but what i found most obscure about it was the use of the word ‘responsibility’, which (when put in context) implied that frog thought employers had a moral or legal responsibilty for how workers got to work. Had this just been an isolated article it could have been ignored. However the greens stance on these issues is well known: Thay want to pass the responsibility for just about everything to employers. This seems like another example of that policy.
On the other hand I could have argued that the whole reason for the arcticle, i.e. the so called stress and injury from driving was a gross exaduration. A bit of driving to and from work never hurt anyone (unless they crash which is a different issue). Certainly not enough to mandate every employer in the country to tell their workers to bike or catch public transport.
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Surely employers DO have some responsibility for both what their employees eat or drink (while at work) and how they get to and from work. Not a sole responsibility of course, but some responsibility.
If a workplace has vending machines or a cafetaria where food or drink can be purchased, surely some of what is on offer should be reasonably healthy?
I know of a workplace where the workers started at 8am. Due to the nature of the work, they required supervision. The bus that serves the area would get them to work at 8:05 or 7:35. They weren’t allowed to start 5 minutes “late”. They weren’t allowed to start at 7:35 either. If they took the bus, they needed to catch the earlier bus and spend 25 minutes reading the paper or gossiping, etc. Why couldn’t management define the normal hours as 8:05 to 4:35 instead of 8:00 to 4:30?
Trevor.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Have we totally lost the ability to take personal responsibility for our own life’s now or is there something more sinister in what frog suggests.
It is not the responsibility of the employer to provide transport nor is it their responsibility what they eat.
The fact that Frog suggests that it might be is of great concern, Nanny state is spreading her tentacles further and further into our everyday existence, this is not (well not yet anyway) a communist state and we do not need the central committee to tell us what to eat or how we should get to work.
We need to be vigilant against these sort of tactics, slowly the hard left are eating away at the rights of the individual and eating away at our ability or desire to make choices for ourselves.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Nick: “the whole reason for the arcticle, i.e. the so called stress and injury from driving was a gross exaduration. A bit of driving to and from work never hurt anyone (unless they crash which is a different issue). Certainly not enough to mandate every employer in the country to tell their workers to bike or catch public transport.”
so you’re saying that when the NZ medical journal reports that death while commuting is the most likely cause of work-related death, that that is a gross exaggeration? How many people would need to be killed before you say that the importance of death while commuting is not being exaggerated?
Maybe it just the stress of commuting aspect that you were poo-pooing? I don’t know how you can argue that “situations where commuters spend long periods of time in their cars every day and where congestion is a problem” are not stressful. I’ve seen (middle-aged male) car drivers get out of their cars and come to blows about who was going to move to let the other go!
If University of Auckland academics write that “commuting by car can result in … significant stress for some”, then I believe them that it is an issue.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Frog represented that the New Zealand Medical Journal pointed out that driving to work can be a bit of a dangerous activity. The quote provided by Frog actually says it is commuting to work that is the danagerous actvity. The Journal editorial links to the study. The study does not distinguish between various modes of travel. But, very importantly, it does identify the most dangerous industries for commuter deaths. The worst are rural industries, and urban industries with a lot of shift workers. This is consistent with the fact that the open road accounts for half of our driving but three quarters of our road toll and nighttime accounts for less than one quarter of our driving and almost half our road toll.
Any comparison of the safety of various modes of commuting should distinguish between urban and rural commuting and should include the entirety of the journey. The World Health Organisation classifies traffic deaths as a sub-group of deaths from violence. This should be the basis for comparing the safety of various modes of commuting. Muggings and homicides are as important as trauma from collisions. In fact they may be perceived as even more important. The point of making these comparisons shouldn’t be to allow smug comments from users of whichever mode turns out to be safest but to guide policy makers to make real improvements to all modes of travel, whether by improving street lighting, targetting police pressence where it is most needed, and not stopping at simply improving “road” safety for vulnerable road users.