“Older drivers have 3 to 20 times higher risk of fatal crash than non-older drivers” [1].
We simply don’t have those data for roofers.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01674...
We simply don’t have those data for roofers.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01674...
Like motorcycles are orders of magnitude higher risk for (including fatal) accidents - but they aren't as dangerous for other traffic participants so they get licensed.
If motorcycles were killing orders of magnitude more pedestrians or other traffic participants than cars they would get banned immediately.
My point is whether it’s others who are dying is irrelevant. We have evidence of increased mortality with age for driving. I’m not seeing similar evidence for roofing. If geriatric roofers were constantly falling to their deaths, we’d see a movement to regulate them, even if they’re falling on flowers and not people.
Every single craftsman I know have abandoned their craft for something else because of body issues or injuries. Also, you’re nowhere as nimble at 50, 60 or 70 as you were when you were 20 or 30, so the risk of work related accidents increases, assuming you’re still doing the same tasks.
This is a good hypothesis. Whatever the reason, I see no evidence for old roofers causing death or injury to anyone, including themselves. There is zero hypocrisy in regulating old drivers while being laxer with old roofers.
Nice theory. Doesn’t work in practice. Most societies are not okay with people taking excessive risks, even if it only impacts them. It’s why we require seatbelts even for single-occupant vehicles.
I for one use seat belts, and I want them to be required to be manufactured in vehicles, but I believe it should be a personal choice whether or not you wear them.
If not, I think you may have missed the point that licensing is to protect others rather than the driver/roofer themselves.