I wonder what the next layer will be - a cycling carapace perhaps, affording upper body and hip protection ?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Trottier [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OBC List > Subject: RE: [obc] [CfSC] Lulling effect of safety measures > > Safety and security is always a layered thing, even more so than other > objectives which have different components or layers, like performance. > > The problem is that when adding another layer of safety via safety belts, > a > helmet, or safety bottle top, people tend to relax other layers, such as > safe behaviour, worn tires, baby locks, etc. > > In part, this is because new safety layers are sold as "solutions" rather > than additional safety layers, just to get them adopted by government. > Then > safety proponents are told they need less money for other layers, like > education, because the solution has been found and adopted. > > So how do we adopt layers without overselling them? Do we point out where > helmets or safety belts failed to save a life? That seems > counterproductive. > > I think the only solution is to make safety measures mandatory, especially > > for role models, like the cyclists in the Tour de France! When safety > measures are automatic, people are free to add more layers. Then other > layers can be promoted as well, layers like behaviour or skills, which are > > less mandateable. > > Tom > > On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 7:16, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote re "[CfSC] Lulling effect of safety measures" saying: > > > The following is an excerpt from a book called Target Risk by > > Gerald J.S. Wilde. The following are comments that are made with the > regard > > to the lulling effect many so called safety features, courses etc. have > in > > our lives. This includes such things as helmets and education. Whether > or > > not you buy into it, it certainly is an interesting read and you have to > > read the whole thing. It has caused quite the debate in the road safety > > industry. > > > > Lynda > > > > > > Other victims of the "lulling effect" have been reported, e.g. children > > under the age of five. In 1972, the Food and Drug Administration in the > USA > > ordered manufacturers of painkillers and other selected drugs to equip > their > > bottles with "child-proof" lids. These are difficult to open for > children > > (and sometimes for adults as well) and often go under the name of > "safety > > caps," a misleading name, as we will see. Their introduction was > followed by > > a substantial increase in the per capita rate of fatal accidental > poisonings > > in children. It was concluded that the impact of the regulation was > > counterproductive, "leading to 3,500 additional (fatal plus non-fatal) > > poisonings of children under age 5 annually from analgesics".[17] These > > findings were explained as the result of parents becoming less careful > in > > the handling and storing of the "safer" bottles". "It is clear that > > individual actions are an important component of the accident-generating > > process. Failure to take such behavi! > > or into account will result in regulations that may not have the > intended > > impact". Indeed, safety is in people, or else it is nowhere. > > > > If parents can be blamed for the lack of effectiveness of safety caps, > does > > a government that passes such near-sighted safety legislation go > guilt-free? > > Does an educational agency that instills a feeling of overconfidence in > > learner drivers go guilt-free? Does a traffic engineering department > that > > gives pedestrians a false sense of safety remain blameless; or a > government > > that requires driver education at a registered driving school before one > is > > allowed to take the licensing test? Is it responsible to call a seatbelt > a > > "safety belt", to propagate through the media such slogans as "seatbelts > > save lives", "speed kills", "to be sober is to be safe", "use condoms > for > > safe sex", or others of the same ilk? > > ------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur ----------------- > ,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 > _-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8 > (*)/'(*) ICQ:57647974 N45.412 W75.714 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Laws are the spider's webs which, > if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, > but large things break through and escape. > --Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE) > > ------ > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064 > Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb > Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter > ------ To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064 Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
