An interesting idea Chris, but one which would immediately become a political nightmare with many vested interests in making it mandatory and expensive. It is true that surgery may not always be the optimum solution for minor ailments, and death rates from dentistry are not zero for example. However decayed or broken teeth are both common and horrible, so we have widespread dentistry. In this case however the risk I have suggested, perhaps one death per year, and tens of millions of cars charged say 25 times a year on average, is an accident rate of 1 in 250 million. You are many times more likely to be killed outside your own gate by a road vehicle. A sense of proportion is necessary in all assessment of risk, the entire world in the UK thinks that risk assessments are the way to go, but when I do that the result is very safe yet we have section 722 and a COP, both of which are extremely cautious and suggest the risk is high (at least high enough to take a lot of measures and cost to remove; actually not remove but reduce by some small unknown amount). The risk of this accident is probably at a level of one thousandth of riding a bicycle on the road or perhaps even less. OK ban bicycles, they are far too dangerous to use, just imagine the pushback from that! The more this is discussed, the more it seems that the situation needs no special measures. I wonder how long it will take for someone to admit this and admit this is a non-problem? It is probably as likely as "someone" admitting that bicycles are a problem yet all drivers know this from direct experience!

An interesting idea Chris, but one which would immediately become a political nightmare with many vested interests in making it mandatory and expensive. It is true that surgery may not always be the optimum solution for minor ailments, and death rates from dentistry are not zero for example. However decayed or broken teeth are both common and horrible, so we have widespread dentistry. In this case however the risk I have suggested, perhaps one death per year, and tens of millions of cars charged say 25 times a year on average, is an accident rate of 1 in 250 million. You are many times more likely to be killed outside your own gate by a road vehicle. A sense of proportion is necessary in all assessment of risk, the entire world in the UK thinks that risk assessments are the way to go, but when I do that the result is very safe yet we have section 722 and a COP, both of which are extremely cautious and suggest the risk is high (at least high enough to take a lot of measures and cost to remove; actually not remove but reduce by some small unknown amount). The risk of this accident is probably at a level of one thousandth of riding a bicycle on the road or perhaps even less. OK ban bicycles, they are far too dangerous to use, just imagine the pushback from that! The more this is discussed, the more it seems that the situation needs no special measures. I wonder how long it will take for someone to admit this and admit this is a non-problem? It is probably as likely as "someone" admitting that bicycles are a problem yet all drivers know this from direct experience!