It’s not the “low use of seat belts” that’s the problem; that’s just the symptom. The problem is that a high percentage of workers are too stupid, lazy, have no concern for their safety, or a combination of these. In this day and age EVERYONE is well aware that seatbelts save lives. You can provide them and issue a policy that they are to be used, but in the final analysis it’s the responsibility of the worker to use them. Those who do not should be denied WC benefits.
i agree, why should we keep promoting safety when it is ignored? why don’t we start reducing the costs that insurance pays out. afterall, it could have been less costly if they had worn seatbelts. insurance costs could go down. but here’s the question, of those lives that were lost, how many actually could have been saved by having used a seatbelt?
I think there’s something missing from the story, specifically how did they define “transportation”?
I find it hard to believe that 65% of work-related fatalities were as a result of the operation of a car or truck.
Did they include buses and aircraft? Did they include forklifts, cranes, earth moving equipment? Did they only count passengers of the vehicle or does it also include a person working near a vehicle who is killed because of the actions of the operator?
Still, even if 65% of work-place fatalities were caused by more common definitions of “transportation” the question would still remain how many of those lives could have been saved by seat-belt use? If you’re driving to a company meeting and get broadsided by a semi-truck the seatbelt isn’t going to do much unless your car also came equipped with an NHRA-approved roll-cage.
It’s not the “low use of seat belts” that’s the problem; that’s just the symptom. The problem is that a high percentage of workers are too stupid, lazy, have no concern for their safety, or a combination of these. In this day and age EVERYONE is well aware that seatbelts save lives. You can provide them and issue a policy that they are to be used, but in the final analysis it’s the responsibility of the worker to use them. Those who do not should be denied WC benefits.
i agree, why should we keep promoting safety when it is ignored? why don’t we start reducing the costs that insurance pays out. afterall, it could have been less costly if they had worn seatbelts. insurance costs could go down. but here’s the question, of those lives that were lost, how many actually could have been saved by having used a seatbelt?
I think there’s something missing from the story, specifically how did they define “transportation”?
I find it hard to believe that 65% of work-related fatalities were as a result of the operation of a car or truck.
Did they include buses and aircraft? Did they include forklifts, cranes, earth moving equipment? Did they only count passengers of the vehicle or does it also include a person working near a vehicle who is killed because of the actions of the operator?
Still, even if 65% of work-place fatalities were caused by more common definitions of “transportation” the question would still remain how many of those lives could have been saved by seat-belt use? If you’re driving to a company meeting and get broadsided by a semi-truck the seatbelt isn’t going to do much unless your car also came equipped with an NHRA-approved roll-cage.