It is insane to presuppose that a particular employee will take additional risk load if you allow them to take appropriate safety measures.
It tries to maximize expected utility based on dubious analysis while denying people the privilege of making the vastly simpler and actually maximum choice of riding safely and wearing a helmet.
Privileging complicated nonsense over straightforward analysis and the companies analysis of net utility over individual freedom to protect themselves is nuts.
This is important to all but likely more so to people who would experience a larger than average risk and thus likely to be denied the ability to work in a profession they could do sufficient safety if not denied safety gear.
It is thus inherently biased against many riders who have a higher risk of injury than average but not unacceptably so.
It also keeps users from responding to increased risk driven by changing road conditions by substituting the companies policy for individuals judgement.
For example riders cannot respond to icy road conditions or known dangerous areas.
I see this as ripe for inevitable claims as far as bias against classes of individuals and injury claims.
People are going to be injured in situations where they can trivially argue that a helmet would have mitigated the damage. With the rate of injury everyone who would prefer to wear a helmet ought to send a certified letter to that effect to the company.
The ones that have the misfortune to be seriously injured will at least have the comfort of owning whatever is left of the company in 2023/24
It tries to maximize expected utility based on dubious analysis while denying people the privilege of making the vastly simpler and actually maximum choice of riding safely and wearing a helmet.
Privileging complicated nonsense over straightforward analysis and the companies analysis of net utility over individual freedom to protect themselves is nuts.
This is important to all but likely more so to people who would experience a larger than average risk and thus likely to be denied the ability to work in a profession they could do sufficient safety if not denied safety gear.
It is thus inherently biased against many riders who have a higher risk of injury than average but not unacceptably so.
It also keeps users from responding to increased risk driven by changing road conditions by substituting the companies policy for individuals judgement.
For example riders cannot respond to icy road conditions or known dangerous areas.
I see this as ripe for inevitable claims as far as bias against classes of individuals and injury claims.
People are going to be injured in situations where they can trivially argue that a helmet would have mitigated the damage. With the rate of injury everyone who would prefer to wear a helmet ought to send a certified letter to that effect to the company.
The ones that have the misfortune to be seriously injured will at least have the comfort of owning whatever is left of the company in 2023/24