-
people do take a risk aversion strategy that is comparable with wearing a helmet.
They don't. They probably take risk minimisation strategy that minimises risk of falling from a ladder rather than a strategy that assumes they will fall (which would be putting on a helmet),
so they:
Ensure the ladder is on secure ground
Get a mate to hold it.
Wear non slip shoes
etc.PPE is (according to the health and safety executive) the thing of last resort.
skydancer-
I think you just rephrased what I was saying.
You may have started this thread with good intentions - to highlight the victimisation of cyclists who aren't at fault - but it's probably best that you stop.
-
PPE is (according to the health and safety executive) the thing of last resort.
What are you on about? You can't set foot on a building site without PPE.
draughts
fizzy.bleach
But I'd argue that in those cases most people do take a risk aversion strategy that is comparable with wearing a helmet.
Wearing a seatbelt in a car/government regulations enforcing the installation of airbags for example. Not climbing the ladder in high winds.
If someone doesn't chose to wear a seat belt, surely they're being an idiot right? You do see articles highlighting the importance of wearing a seatbelt.
Most news outlets are very unfair towards cyclists, but to see this as a case against taking precautions is an odd way of looking at the world. Fortunately wearing a helmet isn't enforceable, and gives you a choice. Arguably using this choice to communicate that you value your own safety negates the voices that call cycling reckless.
Then the first response to a head injury in an car-on-cyclist traffic accident becomes: "holy shit we should make the road safer for cyclists" rather than "he wasn't even wearing a helmet."