Originally Posted by
John C. Ratliff
I-Like-To-Bike, you state, "I may or may not even read the rest of the post since you begin with more double helpings of prime baloney.
No reputable safety professional builds a risk analysis on the worst case potential injuries..." Ever done a
Process Safety Management (PSM) Process Hazard Analysis (this is a document download, so don't expect a URL to appear):
We specifically have to make worst-case assessments, and these must be communicated to the community and emergency responders. So I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is not correct.
That is why I use worst-case scenarios in the assessment of a bicycle fall. It is only chance which determines whether there is a head impact during these mishaps, so that potential must be considered.
More helping of baloney. Nobody needs a hazard analysis of any kind to understand that a worst case scenario of a fatal head injury could occur after a "bicycle fall." No community needs you to communicate your Henny Penny warnings of the worst case scenario "You could Die!!" dressed up as a Hazard Analysis, anymore than they need a rydabent type giving the same shrill alarms without the facade of allegedly serious thought given the subject.
What a reputable hazard analysis must take into account when determining the likely results of a hazard are the
credible probabilities of various types of injury severity that would result from various events. Not just the worst case scenario; this is not a chemical plant or nuclear reactor being evaluated.
Equally damning of your so-called hazard analysis is that your suggested control, the wear of a helmet, has little to no capability to mitigate the severity of the worst case scenarios, or even the fair to middling type injury severities likely to result from bicycle fall events.