|
It is interesting that this came up now, they were talking on the radio this morning about a push to reconsider mandatory helmets and the things some cycling advocates had to say I thought were concerning.
Firstly the rep of the cycling body misquoting or at least misunderstanding OH&S methodology. Quoting that 80% of cycling accidents are the fault of the driver of a car (Cant comment on that figure, so I wont) and talking about the "Hierarchy of controls" starting, as you should, at the top, with "Elimination" saying that what you need to do is to stop cars hitting bikes (You do always start with elimination if it is possible and practicable)
I work in an OH&S heavy industry. The HAZARD is falling off your bike (Whatever the cause of falling off may be) The risk is how likely that is to happen, and on top of that you have to look at the potential consequences of the hazard coming to pass (Catastrophic)
"Elimination" of the hazard is entirely possible, don't ride a bike, but obviously not practicable. I could go on and on down the hierarchy of controls but in the end, if you are going to ride a bike the hazard of falling off is there and the least effective form of control comes in to play, PPE (Wear a helmet)
The other one was a cyclist who came on and more or less advocated that helmets should be voluntary for adults (Who obviously know not to fall of their bikes and of they do, not to hit their head!) and that responsibility should be put on to car drivers, anyone but the cyclist themselves! She actually did say that riders should not be responsible for their own safety when it comes to being around cars, more than once!
I think both of them put pretty good arguments forward for the case of helmets remaining mandatory.
|