Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:31:10 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 5:50:08 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

I think that the requirement to wear a hard hat on construction sites
is largely a requirement to pacify the insurance folks. At least that
is what the oil well drilling people used to tell us.

I've previously described watching a major repaving operation of a road near my
house. This road is busy enough they were doing the repaving only at night.

I watched one worker slowly driving a pickup truck along the road, stop it and
park it, then get out and walk back to the action. But before he got out, he
dutifully put on his construction hard hat.

All the work was being done at ground level. There was nothing overhead but the
stars. The hard hat would have done him more good _inside_ the truck, if anything.

But a rule is a rule, I'm sure.

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps it was mandatory to wear a "hard hat". I've certainly worked
on projects where not wearing a hard hat was cause to be terminated
and most drilling rigs will not allow even "those guys wearing
suits" to go on the rig floor without a hard hat. It might be noted
that probably the lightest thing hanging over your head on a drilling
rig is the traveling block and swivel that probably weighs 3,000 lbs,
or more :-)

Oh, I have no doubt it was mandatory for these paving guys to wear hard hats.
I also have no doubt it was a stupid requirement. Realistically, the guys
biggest chance of a head injury was when he was getting out of his truck; he
might have bumped his head on the upper edge of the roof.

There was nothing above his head. There would be nothing above his head except
perhaps some telephone lines during the entire operation.

- Frank Krygowski

As I believe I wrote before, it is probably required by the insurance
company. Just like wearing a life jacket while aboard the crew change
boat although the water is so shallow that you can usually walk
ashore.

And, quite often to short circuit any discussion about "I don't need
to wear one over there" the rule is that ALL personal will wear
safety equipment ALL they time they are on the job site. Or words to
that effect.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:06:11 +0700, John B. wrote:


As I believe I wrote before, it is probably required by the insurance
company. Just like wearing a life jacket while aboard the crew change
boat although the water is so shallow that you can usually walk ashore.

OTOH, I've seen plenty of incidents with watercraft where wearing a
lifejacket is worthwhile insurance. If it can float a craft, then you
can drown in it and you don't always enter the water in a controlled way.

And, quite often to short circuit any discussion about "I don't need to
wear one over there" the rule is that ALL personal will wear safety
equipment ALL they time they are on the job site. Or words to that
effect.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:58:34 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:06:11 +0700, John B. wrote:


As I believe I wrote before, it is probably required by the insurance
company. Just like wearing a life jacket while aboard the crew change
boat although the water is so shallow that you can usually walk ashore.

OTOH, I've seen plenty of incidents with watercraft where wearing a
lifejacket is worthwhile insurance. If it can float a craft, then you
can drown in it and you don't always enter the water in a controlled way.

And, quite often to short circuit any discussion about "I don't need to
wear one over there" the rule is that ALL personal will wear safety
equipment ALL they time they are on the job site. Or words to that
effect.

40,000 pedestrians were killed doing things like walking across parking lots to go to a store. How many people were drowned on watercraft last year?

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:58:34 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:06:11 +0700, John B. wrote:


As I believe I wrote before, it is probably required by the insurance
company. Just like wearing a life jacket while aboard the crew change
boat although the water is so shallow that you can usually walk ashore.

OTOH, I've seen plenty of incidents with watercraft where wearing a
lifejacket is worthwhile insurance. If it can float a craft, then you
can drown in it and you don't always enter the water in a controlled way.

And, quite often to short circuit any discussion about "I don't need to
wear one over there" the rule is that ALL personal will wear safety
equipment ALL they time they are on the job site. Or words to that
effect.

40,000 pedestrians were killed doing things like walking across parking lots to go to a store. How many people were drowned on watercraft last year?

I think the annual U.S. pedestrian death toll has typically been about 4500. But
it's gone as high as 6200 in the past couple years - a sudden and very serious
increase. Those are NHTSA figures.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:31:10 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 5:50:08 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

I think that the requirement to wear a hard hat on construction sites
is largely a requirement to pacify the insurance folks. At least that
is what the oil well drilling people used to tell us.

I've previously described watching a major repaving operation of a
road near my
house. This road is busy enough they were doing the repaving only at night.

I watched one worker slowly driving a pickup truck along the road,
stop it and
park it, then get out and walk back to the action. But before he got out, he
dutifully put on his construction hard hat.

All the work was being done at ground level. There was nothing
overhead but the
stars. The hard hat would have done him more good _inside_ the
truck, if anything.

But a rule is a rule, I'm sure.

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps it was mandatory to wear a "hard hat". I've certainly worked
on projects where not wearing a hard hat was cause to be terminated
and most drilling rigs will not allow even "those guys wearing
suits" to go on the rig floor without a hard hat. It might be noted
that probably the lightest thing hanging over your head on a drilling
rig is the traveling block and swivel that probably weighs 3,000 lbs,
or more :-)

Oh, I have no doubt it was mandatory for these paving guys to wear hard hats.
I also have no doubt it was a stupid requirement. Realistically, the guys
biggest chance of a head injury was when he was getting out of his truck; he
might have bumped his head on the upper edge of the roof.

There was nothing above his head. There would be nothing above his head except
perhaps some telephone lines during the entire operation.

Did you ever teach a lab class? If so, I'm guessing there a requirement
to wear eye protection at all times. What would you have said if a
student argued that, under the particular circumstances of the day, he
didn't actually need it? Frequently as an employee it just does not pay
(literally) to think for oneself.

One valuable aspect to mandatory hard hats is that it sets those that
are supposed to be on site apart from members of the public that have
just wandered in.

Tom Kunich writes:

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:58:34 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:06:11 +0700, John B. wrote:


As I believe I wrote before, it is probably required by the insurance
company. Just like wearing a life jacket while aboard the crew change
boat although the water is so shallow that you can usually walk ashore.

OTOH, I've seen plenty of incidents with watercraft where wearing a
lifejacket is worthwhile insurance. If it can float a craft, then you
can drown in it and you don't always enter the water in a controlled way.

And, quite often to short circuit any discussion about "I don't need to
wear one over there" the rule is that ALL personal will wear safety
equipment ALL they time they are on the job site. Or words to that
effect.

40,000 pedestrians were killed doing things like walking across
parking lots to go to a store. How many people were drowned on
watercraft last year?

In 2017, according to the US Coast Guard

https://www.uscgboating.org/library/...stics-2017.pdf

In 2017, the Coast Guard counted 4,291 accidents that involved
658 deaths, 2,629 injuries and approximately $46 million dollars
of damage to pro perty as a result of recreational boating
accidents.

The fatality rate was 5.5 deaths per 100,000 registered
recreational vessels. This rate represents a 6.8% decrease from
the 2016 fatality rate of 5.9 deaths per 100,000 registered
recreational vessels.

Compared to 2016, the number of accidents decreased 3.9%, the
number of deaths decreased 6.1%, and the number of injuries
decreased 9.4%.

Where cause of death was known, 76% of fatal boating accident
victims drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported life
jacket usage, 84.5% w ere not wearing a life jacket.

Where length was known, eight out of every ten boaters who
drowned were using vessels less than 21 feet in length.

Alcohol use is the leading known contributing factor in fatal
boating accidents; where the primary cause was known, it was
listed as the leading factor in 19% of deaths.

You might note that small, non-powered vessels do not require
registration, and probably accounted for some of the accidents.

It's required in the US for recreational boaters to have life jackets or
other floatation devices on board for all, but not to actually wear them
all the time.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:21:09 AM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


Oh, I have no doubt it was mandatory for these paving guys to wear hard hats.
I also have no doubt it was a stupid requirement. Realistically, the guys
biggest chance of a head injury was when he was getting out of his truck; he
might have bumped his head on the upper edge of the roof.

There was nothing above his head. There would be nothing above his head except
perhaps some telephone lines during the entire operation.

Did you ever teach a lab class? If so, I'm guessing there a requirement
to wear eye protection at all times. What would you have said if a
student argued that, under the particular circumstances of the day, he
didn't actually need it? Frequently as an employee it just does not pay
(literally) to think for oneself.

One valuable aspect to mandatory hard hats is that it sets those that
are supposed to be on site apart from members of the public that have
just wandered in.

Yes, I taught many lab classes, including an intro to machine shop. Yes, the
rule was "eye protection at all times." But that was mostly because there was
_always_ something happening that justified eye protection. Typically there
would be five lathes running, one milling machine, occasionally a shaper,
one or another saws, etc.

On the first day of class I did an introduction, where I'd explain what each
machine did. For that, the students didn't have eye protection and it wasn't
needed.

Regarding the pickup truck driver on the paving operation, I fully understand
the convenience to the management or (more likely) the insurance company to say
"hard hats at all times." In particular, insurance companies get to impose those
sorts of requirements at no cost to themselves, so their rationale is probably
"What the hell, it _might_ help and it's no skin off our nose."

But to me, when that leads to head protection against phantom hazards, it's
still weird. And it's one of the drivers of "safety inflation."

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:04:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:58:34 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:06:11 +0700, John B. wrote:


As I believe I wrote before, it is probably required by the insurance
company. Just like wearing a life jacket while aboard the crew change
boat although the water is so shallow that you can usually walk ashore.

OTOH, I've seen plenty of incidents with watercraft where wearing a
lifejacket is worthwhile insurance. If it can float a craft, then you
can drown in it and you don't always enter the water in a controlled way.

And, quite often to short circuit any discussion about "I don't need to
wear one over there" the rule is that ALL personal will wear safety
equipment ALL they time they are on the job site. Or words to that
effect.

40,000 pedestrians were killed doing things like walking across parking lots to go to a store. How many people were drowned on watercraft last year?

I think the annual U.S. pedestrian death toll has typically been about 4500. But
it's gone as high as 6200 in the past couple years - a sudden and very serious
increase. Those are NHTSA figures.

- Frank Krygowski

I accidentally got car deaths written down instead of pedestrians. However, my point is the same. Remember I raced sailboats, sometimes many miles from shore and I do not swim well. I always wore a life jacket but the most important thing wasn't that jacket - it was a safety line.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 4:21:09 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:

One valuable aspect to mandatory hard hats is that it sets those that
are supposed to be on site apart from members of the public that have
just wandered in.

Quite. That's why when I wander into a construction site to try out their battery-powered angle grinders on bicycle U-locks, I always drop into the site office first, because there are always hard hats lying around there. Once you have a hard hat, nobody questions your presence or actions.

Once I had eight miles of reflector mounts removed by the contractor's workmen from railings beside a favourite road by simply walking onto the site, putting on a hardhat and the engineer's jacket which hung over the back of his chair when he went to the lavatory, and ordering it. These reflector mounts were real knee breakers for cyclists, metal, triangular, mounted on solid wood (half-sawn logs) at around 18" above the road, including in places where the hard shoulder, which cyclists would normally ride on this busy highway, just disappeared, pouf, gone. They never went back up, because the next day the whole shebang moved across a bridge beyond a junction where I always took the other fork.

Andre Jute
The greatest advantage of having been so thoroughly educated in so many countries (besides never going hungry even when I was a stateless, passportless political exile because there isn't a country in the world without some mover and shaker who was at college with me), is acquiring the proper tone of command, which is never questioned, in so many languages. Very useful, that, if you have the balls for it (in South America I started a couple of shooting incidents because my Castilian accent was precisely what the revos were fighting against -- oops!).

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:37:03 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:

I accidentally got car deaths written down instead of pedestrians. However, my point is the same. Remember I raced sailboats, sometimes many miles from shore and I do not swim well. I always wore a life jacket but the most important thing wasn't that jacket - it was a safety line.

Most blue water sailors I know can't swim either.

AJ