This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.
I don't understand what you mean by this. There is no scientifically discernible cause and effect between etiher hi viz or helmets and cyclists safety. There is some evidence that they negatively impact the behaviour of road users, but the relationship is not well understood. What is the cause & effect to which you refer? What is the baby that being thrown out with the bathwater?
BlueRider wrote:The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.
I'm not sure what you mean by discontent. There is some evidence that merely encouraging the use of helmets actually puts people off cycling. The theory is that is makes cycling seem more dangerous, but (again) the causes are not well understood. Those people who are put off cycling by the promotion of helmets have a *much* lower risk of dying if they cycle without helmets than if they do not get enough exercise.
BlueRider wrote:What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.
The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.
Correct stance? Why do you get to decide what is the correct stance?
If it was rambling, we wouldn't be talking about the need to understand the inherent dangers and risks. Cycling should be no different. It carries a similar level of risk. People hardly even consider it for *driving* which kills thousands every year in Great Britain.
Safety is everyone's responsibility. But I have yet to see evidence that either helmets or hi viz for cyclists offer significant benefits. Job sites and what have you are something else. For one thing, the use of PPE is evidence based. For another thing, employers have responsibility to prevent incidents and injuries. They have to have insurance in case things go wrong. Employers can require employees to use PPE, without shifting any of the responsibility for safety. Employers are still legally and civilly responsible. You will note that they do not and cannot require members of the public to use PPE until they enter the job site.
Wear hi viz and helmets, if you must, but please don't imply that *I* have a responsibility to do so.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom