And I thought the ones without lights were bad.

ED E

TallGlass wrote: »

What else I find funny, in that email reply. Did they just refer to them as a 'partner'? So the guy cycling the bike is a partner, Jesus it really is a race to the bottom with business terminology.

Its not a business lingo thing, its a we dont want to pay any benefits or insurance thing.

Same way your courier doesnt work for DHL/DPD/Nightline but is a "Delivery Partner". That way when a Deliveroo flattens a pensioner they dont end up in court.

TallGlass

ED E wrote: »

Its not a business lingo thing, its a we dont want to pay any benefits or insurance thing.

Same way your courier doesnt work for DHL/DPD/Nightline but is a "Delivery Partner". That way when a Deliveroo flattens a pensioner they dont end up in court.

Ah stop, I know. Total cowboy operations, there needs to be some sort of legislation but in place, the company cannot be allowed dissolve themselves of making sure there employees and the public are safe. Let not even get started on workers rights.

Kaisr Sose

tomasrojo wrote: »

There was a thread recently about the UK case.

I pasted this link back then:
https://rangeofreasonableresponses.com/2016/10/29/why-uber-lost-in-the-employment-tribunal//

I'm not that knowledgeable about the subject, but in that post he says that Uber drivers were deemed to work for Uber, rather than being employees of Uber. That still means they have certain rights that are being denied them, and I assume the same largely applies to Deliveroo.

In a nutshell the judge found they had entitlements to min wage, sick pay, holidays. Uber / Deliveroo were trying to make them out as self employed but the judge said there was a direct employment relationship that went beyond being self employment. 100% right too!

tomasrojo

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

In a nutshell the judge found they had entitlements to min wage, sick pay, holidays. Uber / Deliveroo were trying to make them out as self employed but the judge said there was a direct employment relationship that went beyond being self employment. 100% right too!

It sounds a bit like splitting hairs, but according to the link, the ruling was that they worked for Uber, not that they were employed by Uber. So they're not self-employed, but they're not employees either.

Uber drivers are not employees and don’t let anyone tell you different.
On the other hand, in Aslam & others v Uber BV and others the Tribunal did hold that they were ‘workers’.

The information in the link could be wrong, but it seems ok to me.

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

That way when a Deliveroo flattens a pensioner they dont end up in court.

That's part of what they are trying to achieve, though the employer responsibilities are probably a bigger issue that the liability for injuries to 3rd parties. Either way, it's not that simple. Certainly the obligations under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act go beyond employees.

tomasrojo wrote: »

The pretence, on Deliveroo's part, is that the contract is between the delivery person and the recipient.

This needs to be comprehensively debunked and thrown out everywhere. The Deliveroonians clearly work for Deliveroo, even if they're not employees, as such.

From the point of view of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether they are employees or not - Deliveroo is still responsible for ensure a safe place of work and safe systems of work.

punisher5112

At a minimum anyone doing delivery or any type of job as such should have insurance to cover against injuring 3rd parties.

Kaisr Sose

Agree on the insurance aspect. Is this how it applies to general cycle couriers? If they are working and hit somebody, that's an accident at work, not just one involving a cyclist.

ED E

punisher5112 wrote: »

At a minimum anyone doing delivery or any type of job as such should have insurance to cover against injuring 3rd parties.

The Gardai/DPP have never got up the willpower to deal with this.

Hundreds of Dominos, Four Star, Apache
Hundreds of smaller Pizza places
Hundreds of Chineses
Deliveroo
...

They all operate on private policies. They aren't valid to use for work. Insurer can walk away once its reported they were wearing company Xs logo or cap.

All it would take is AGS to pull them at checkpoints and call the insurer for a validity check and let them know they're working in their vehicle. Cancelled policies out the wazoo.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Agree on the insurance aspect. Is this how it applies to general cycle couriers? If they are working and hit somebody, that's an accident at work, not just one involving a cyclist.

They're all "independent". Cyclone etc along with deliveroo. Its not legitimate, but they're acting as if it is.

Make a complaint to Cyclone RE dangerous road use and youll hear exactly how its nothing to do with them.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's part of what they are trying to achieve, though the employer responsibilities are probably a bigger issue that the liability for injuries to 3rd parties. Either way, it's not that simple. Certainly the obligations under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act go beyond employees.


From the point of view of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether they are employees or not - Deliveroo is still responsible for ensure a safe place of work and safe systems of work.

HSW legislation is primarily about employees and public members entering the workplace. When Jimmy the postman is on the road AnPosts CEO has a duty of care to Jimmy but not Joe Public (specifically in related to HSW).

The problem is the onus is on the Director/CEO since the changes (to stop the blame game). If you take Deliveroo's bullsh1t argument that they're self employed then the driver has the responsibility for himself same as a self employer plummer etc. If it were to be legally challenged the relationship could be probably be defined correctly but then I'd anticipate Deliveroo exiting the market.

Kaisr Sose

The whole thing is an ass then! People should not be able to profit on the back of others and have no legal responsibility to those "working for them"
On building sites, a sub contractor is fully protected by HS Legislation and the developer is fully on the line of HS refs are not enforced, so why not the same on the public highway?
You are correct about the insurance being voided if there is an accident where the policy holder does not have the right class of insurance. Social Domestic and Pleasure won't wash if you are delivering Pizza or Fried Rice! The worrying thing is there are loads of these potentially uninsured delivery types on the roads, some who don't even seem to know the Irish Rules of the Road!

Wishbone Ash

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

...On building sites, a sub contractor is fully protected by HS Legislation and the developer is fully on the line of HS refs are not enforced, so why not the same on the public highway? ...

You can't really compare with a building site as, by it very nature, it is private property and they can control who has access to it. A public highway is totally different.

And where do the limits get drawn? What about a foot courier/messenger? I know I'm being pedantic but the law has to cover every scenario.

Kaisr Sose

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You can't really compare with a building site as, by it very nature, it is private property and they can control who has access to it. A public highway is totally different.

And where do the limits get drawn? What about a foot courier/messenger? I know I'm being pedantic but the law has to cover every scenario.

The issue with building sites also applies to working on public roads - motorway maintenance, road resurfacing etc. It's not a public/private thing, though your point is well made and valid.

The point I was making was more to do with the contractor and sub-contractors being subject to the H&S in the workplace Act and it cannot be contracted out of or responsibility assigned to somebody else. It should be no different for messengers and delivery people.

2 Wheels Good

Is there any point complaining about the Deliveroo "cyclists" to the gards or anyone?

punisher5112

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

Is there any point complaining about the Deliveroo "cyclists" to the gards or anyone?

Of course if it is warranted.

Only difference is on a push bike its less likely to come to anything where as a vehicle such as car or motorcycle they seem to have more powers they can use as points and bigger fines.

magicbastarder

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

Is there any point complaining about the Deliveroo "cyclists" to the gards or anyone?

would this not be tackling the symptoms instead of the cause though?

2 Wheels Good

magicbastarder wrote: »

would this not be tackling the symptoms instead of the cause though?

Their riders supply their own bikes so aren't they the cause? (Correct me if I'm wrong)
Deliveroo claim to give training in how to set up the bike.

magicbastarder

do you believe that?

buffalo

Alanstrainor wrote: »

You're in A1 territory as far as licensing.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed in the A1 category. Maybe if you were an A3 against juniors?

Parchment

i often wonder what state the food arrives in from those Deliveroo "backpacks".

rubadub

punisher5112 wrote: »

Only difference is on a push bike its less likely to come to anything where as a vehicle such as car or motorcycle they seem to have more powers they can use as points and bigger fines.

People are not talking about complaining about deliveroo guys on pushbikes, they are talking about them on uninsured untaxed motorbikes.

You seem to be the only one who thinks they are legal. If reported the gardai might bother to formally investigate.

If they were legal then I am extremely confused why regular established bike shops are not selling them.

I see the site selling them says they are limited to 25km/hr, don't think that makes them legal, and I would imagine they are easily derestricted if it is true at all.

AndrewJRenko

ED E wrote: »

The Gardai/DPP have never got up the willpower to deal with this.

Hundreds of Dominos, Four Star, Apache
Hundreds of smaller Pizza places
Hundreds of Chineses
Deliveroo
...

They all operate on private policies. They aren't valid to use for work. Insurer can walk away once its reported they were wearing company Xs logo or cap.

All it would take is AGS to pull them at checkpoints and call the insurer for a validity check and let them know they're working in their vehicle. Cancelled policies out the wazoo.

This is a huge issue, way more serious than a few Deliveroo lads on dodgy bikes. The businesses concerned know well what is going on, and choose to turn a blind eye, as do the Gardai.

ED E wrote: »

HSW legislation is primarily about employees and public members entering the workplace. When Jimmy the postman is on the road AnPosts CEO has a duty of care to Jimmy but not Joe Public (specifically in related to HSW).

The problem is the onus is on the Director/CEO since the changes (to stop the blame game). If you take Deliveroo's bullsh1t argument that they're self employed then the driver has the responsibility for himself same as a self employer plummer etc. If it were to be legally challenged the relationship could be probably be defined correctly but then I'd anticipate Deliveroo exiting the market.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/10/enacted/en/print#sec12
Section 12 of the SHWAW Act puts a clear obligation on employers to be responsible for the safety of any "individuals at the place of work". So if the place of work is on the street, they are responsible for the safety of Joe Public.

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

Is there any point complaining about the Deliveroo "cyclists" to the gards or anyone?

Yes, good to raise visibility of the issue, but it is unlikely to have a major impact. They could start stopping the riders for not having lights (as most of them seem to do).

rubadub wrote: »

People are not talking about complaining about deliveroo guys on pushbikes,

I am - the majority of them don't have lights on their bikes, yet they are biking for a living, mostly in the evenings.

Kaisr Sose

It needs to be said that lots of cyclists who don't work for deliverooo have no lights

Ultimately is a policing/enforcement issue. Nobody, leisure or working should be able to get away with 'no lights'

Effects

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I am - the majority of them don't have lights on their bikes, yet they are biking for a living, mostly in the evenings.

It seems to me that a lot of them fall into the same category of dum dum cyclists to whom it just doesn't occur that lights are necessary.

AndrewJRenko

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

It needs to be said that lots of cyclists who don't work for deliverooo have no lights

Purely anecdotal, but I think there are fewer cyclists with no lights around the place compared to a few years ago. Maybe it is the availability of cheap lights in Tesco or Dealz or Lidl that helps.

There are lots of cyclists with crap lights, mind you.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Ultimately is a policing/enforcement issue. Nobody, leisure or working should be able to get away with 'no lights'

There is a particular obligation on someone who would be riding for a living, working for several hours on several days to comply with the law, IMHO.

punisher5112

rubadub wrote: »

People are not talking about complaining about deliveroo guys on pushbikes, they are talking about them on uninsured untaxed motorbikes.

You seem to be the only one who thinks they are legal. If reported the gardai might bother to formally investigate.

If they were legal then I am extremely confused why regular established bike shops are not selling them.

I see the site selling them says they are limited to 25km/hr, don't think that makes them legal, and I would imagine they are easily derestricted if it is true at all.

I have been in contact with Garda twitter and donedeal and they have no issue once power rating and speed are restricted unless they are planning on changing.

I still don't believe they are legal but where I would like to clarify is the genuine ones from 60s 70s era.

tomasrojo

punisher5112 wrote: »

I have been in contact with Garda twitter and donedeal and they have no issue once power rating and speed are restricted unless they are planning on changing.

I still don't believe they are legal but where I would like to clarify is the genuine ones from 60s 70s era.

I'm not sure, but I think the older models were "mopeds" (which is a term now applied to some types of scooters, which are not the same thing) where a set of pedals got the bike moving and the engine going, rather than the old style of running alongside the motorcycle and jumping on.

They're not modified pedal cycles though; they always have built-in lights and motorcycle-style brakes; they're really motorcycles with a very modest amount of pedal assistance. Traditionally they were always treated more leniently than motor cycles though, because their speed range was more like a bicycle.

You used to seem them in France a fair bit.

From Wikipedia:

Kaisr Sose

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are lots of cyclists with crap lights, mind you.

A crap light is newly the same as no light.

[quote=AndrewJRenko;102469420
There is a particular obligation on someone who would be riding for a living, working for several hours on several days to comply with the law, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

That's the whole point /theme of the thread....many are not complying withe law (RTA) and their "employer" seems to be exempting themselves from any obligation in this regard. "Employer" is a loose term as Deliveroo would say they are not employees