Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore
So out of the millions of traffic stops performed by the police in this fashion, none of them have resulted in the officer being hurt, let alone killed? Yet you still think a change needs to be made? I'm all for being proactive but if nobody has even been injured by this it seems a bit excessive, no?
|
when are you an expert enough of a roofer to not require fall protection?
Baww this clunky harness is always such a hassle to put on and tie of to my anchor points on; I know what I'm doing, I don't need this.
When are you expert enough of a carpenter to not require eye protection?
Baww these stupid safety glasses always fog up on me. I know this type of wood doesn't produce flying debris; I know what I'm doing, I don't need this.
When are you expert enough of a worker in a warehouse with moving forklifts to not require high visibility clothing?
Baww these stupid vests look stupid. I bet they would actually get caught on things.
Sorry, no.
Canadian Freightways Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 391In response to the applicant's argument that high-visibility vests would not be beneficial and might even create a hazard for employees, the appeals officer found that little weight could be given to the view of the applicant's health and safety committees in that regard because the committees based their conclusions on anecdotal experience rather than study, and because they were influenced by an overall worker preference to forego personal protective equipment.
Admittedly police make up probably the smallest proportion of persons operating on our near roadways (behind construction workers, flag people, tow truck drivers ,etc)and because of this we see the smallest number of absolute injuries or fatalities; but to borrow a phrase from the computing world "security through obscurity is no security at all"
A culture of safety within an organization begins at the top.