That's a coincidence: I'd prefer to think that the cigarette companies were 'innocent/well meaning', too........
There's no doubt: old age increases one's cynicism. Don't you become as cynical as me! I know it's a fault of mine!
However, even if I had a long conversation with Leatt (etc.) and they told me that they had a 75% chance of making people safer in accidents with the neck brace, I couldn't help but take the same view as the MSA appear to be taking: (I have NO PROOF that this is their position) but I'd have to consider my legal liabilities.
If I recommended using one.... and someone was injured WHILE wearing one , I could easily imagine someone trying to sue me. However, if I advised someone NOT to wear one and then they got injured and could show that the neck brace MIGHT have 'saved' them..... I can see someone trying to sue me in THAT situation, too! It's a real 'no-win' situation!
So, all I can do is what the MSA seem to be doing. In light of the lack of evidence, I simply CANNOT and WILL NOT say that they are safer or unsafe or no-benefit-or-disadvantage. I don't have ANY evidential proof in any 'direction' on this matter and I have NEVER claimed that I had.
All I have said is:
"There is NO independent evidence that I have found. Use one if YOU want to. Just don't tell us all that you ARE being safer, and thus encourage others to use them, WITHOUT INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE!"
Do remember that I have ZERO 'expertise' in this area and have NEVER claimed to have any! I am just an 'ordinary bloke' who has tried to work out WHY the MSA won't say one way or the other.
It's a cop-out, I know: but what options do I have?????
Ian
|
|