Tonyf33 wrote:The above has been mentioned with regard to logical steps/correct procedure etc elsewhere.
A couple of things though:
"The main hazards are being struck by a car/motor vehicle and falling off", I'd say you are confusing hazard with consequence/outcome, no?
In all instances it is critical to understand the difference otherwise in part you'll fail to understand the 'why something happened' and by definition cannot then apply effective preventative methods/procedures.
For a commuter, falling off is generally low likelihood,
Liklihood of "falling off" (the consequence/outcome of not overcoming/avoiding the hazard) for an experienced commuter is not low to medium, in fact in the extremely low occurence range. Think about how often you have fallen off ever...mine is thrice in 32 years (incl an newbie SPD moment)
the 'likelihood' of harm/injury at or above that being considered to prevent (head injury) would be extremely low...mine is ZERO despite being struck twice by motorvehicles
given the data we already have we know that that is the case otherwise we'd have had high tens of thousands of TBI cases and low thousand of deaths solely from head injury pre helmets.
Can you even describe cycle helmets as 'PPE' if the H&SE have already decreed that they aren't?
Not confusion, just trying to summarise....
Hazard (potential source of harm): collision with moving motor vehicle. Risk (probability of the potential to cause harm begin realized)- outcome x likelihood. Outcome- varies from minor scrape to serious injury (most likely NOT to head!). Likelihood- variable depending on the context.
Falling off- yes well that is an outcome but is also a round up of several causes leading to a type of "event that could cause harm" which is a loose description of a hazard. In this case, I have not listed all the causes of falling off (hence the "summarising"). Falling off could be down to several things- dodgy road surface, poor personal balance, badly maintained bike, not being sufficiently skilled a rider for the type of bike...... I don't see "falling off" as caused by of a "collision" though.
I wouldn't describe cycle helmets as PPE for exactly the reason you state. However, I was responding to a poster who brought in the H&S approach and "reasonably practicable." My point was, even if we took that "H&S" approach, even if a helmet was PPE, there would be no justification for mandating cycle helmets- something I think we're in agreement on
Contrary to popular belief, the HSE is very sensible when it comes to risk assessment. Their "myth of the month" was a really good campaign.
The use of PPE in a "uniform" sense is far too prevalent in my view. Just look at the use of orange garb on the railway infrastructure