Anti-cycling focus and risk management

I really like the premise of the OP, but I'm not sure it's entirely transferrable to cycling in its current form. The risk control hierarchy linked to is specific to the construction industry, and has been "[d]eveloped by the construction industry’s Leadership and Worker Engagement Forum".

Moving away from the advice specifically designed for the construction industry and looking to the generic advice on risk management, when one reaches the section on "Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions" there are a number of parallels with the OP:

[]try a less risky option (eg switch to using a less hazardous chemical);
[]prevent access to the hazard (eg by guarding);
[]organise work to reduce exposure to the hazard (eg put barriers between pedestrians and traffic);
[]issue personal protective equipment (eg clothing, footwear, goggles etc); and
[*]provide welfare facilities (eg first aid and washing facilities for removal of contamination).
These actions don't entirely correspond with the OP (in terms of order of priority at least), but do strongly reinforce the argument that PPE/hi-viz etc. are very much a last resort when it comes to preventing incidents (the provision of welfare facilities treating the cause rather than the effect).

Cycling Instructor Trainers use this HSE guidance to explain why cycle training's view on ppe is neutral. pro choice. though much of the road safety world like ppe still

cycle trainers often get asked why they dont wear a helmet to set an example to their trainees