Its about a different perspective

Its about a different perspective
It’s amazing when those who think they like free speech turn away when questioned. Extremist views on the nature of things grant nothing but extremism itself. You want to live in grey, then stop pushing and advertising an ideology, for as soon as a person speaks their mind, they are making their opinion...MD / The photo represents the naive thinking that one can think in an unconscious grey state of mind: you cannot think in an unconscious state (thinking is an effort). I am not sure where some get their expert titles from! The grey area represents those who think grey areas is where safety should be. Status Quo is the alternative solution that may emerge over time in following of those who think they know all. An head up arse is just where some people thrive...sorry

Many Still Think That Risk Homeostasis Is A Fallacy

I replied on LinkedIn (the post was taken off by the author as my view must to be true as why would you take it off...to stop people thinking! these people protect their views like a religious zealot)to this post HERE as it just shows again how people are trying to justify how a name in vented in hindsight and used in hindsight makes sense...I am saying so what!....what can you do to prevent it occurring...safety is about prevention

All I get from this post is a hindsighted (told you so) view to prove a term that can only be given in hindsight. Oh you say...this proves RHT exists...well not sure anyone is proving it does not exist, the issue is how could we know for sure that the lines did not do what they were hoped to do...that being to provide some sort of shared space on the road for cyclists.


So what you are saying is to not do anything or to try and improve safety as like you always say, there is always a trade off of an equal or worse risk (I think I have disproved this notion with the WAH harness argument you could not argue against). The article is about cycle lanes and that because drivers cross over onto white lines and that riders may take more risk, this proves we might as well do nothing...why am I stating this; you seem to jump up and act as (in your own words) "some sort safety person who relishes incidents (in his case a theory) so they (you) can step in and do their thing or spruik "I told you so"?" ...well this is what you have just done yourself.


You have also just used a safety initiative in a negative way...well done!...why cannot safety be a positive thing you ask?

So, can the author explain how we can control/mitigate RHT in a foresighted manner so we cannot make these "told you so" actions? I mean really, if we cannot know of a trade off result (and maybe the lines may have improved safety) until after the event/study/trial/ implementation what benefit can be gain learning about how we can tell everyone after the fact what they just did or implemented.

Maybe the fallacy is the thinking we can see into the future to predict the outcome of the thing we are putting in place to hopefully improve something...

And maybe can the author give his advice on how he would have made a space for cyclists on a road? what just had nothing....i wonder how many heavy vehicles would cross over a invisible line...I also wonder if a study will show how many vehicles enter into the 1.5 m gap....and i wonder if this also is a stupid "i told you so" rule? How about we rid all rules and be loose and let everyone manage their own risk as this is what the author supports...This thinking denies what is need to be a functioning society!

Once one commits to the illogical binary oppositional mindset, it all goes downhill from there and, there can certainly be no balance once one accepts an extremist absolute semiotic. This never shifts to one's private life of course, it is only applied to safety. It is also something one applies to other people, this absolutism and extremist sense of rule and power is never intended to be applied to self, its is something that is always good for 'other people'. Then when something doesn't suit the logic people resort to insult, abuse or personal attack and then complain of censorship, the same censorship they want applied to you. The logic is of course that their power is more important than your power and that dissent should be tolerated only when it suits them. Hence more binary polarization in the name of good. RL

Look at some of the bias replies

When all you have is process and engineering controls, well all you have is process and engineering controls....... Sad that our industry is so fixated on control, fear and 'fixing', seems not at all interested in 'living' and understanding. When your approach has this at it's basis every problem must be fixed. The trajectory is..... ? Certainly not being human or fallible
 My comment; Psychology is a process. All studies follow what?  

Mark M. 

What I think is most important is that when looking at an accident and trying to put all of the pieces together, we should look at the individuals level of acceptable risk and not our own acceptable levels. They may have accepted an act because the amount of risk was comfortable to them and to attempt to change that level of comfort is about as easy as making the sun rise in the west.

What a stupid comment - its sying let workers choose what risk they want to take...I know, lets rid speed zones!!!! how bloody pathetic...
Rob Long 
The delusion is that engineering solutions and thinking 'control'.
A typical absolute reply from one who dislikes people talking in blank and white...There is no delusion that engineering controls people...