If you read the report i posted above you would know the trigger was actually two firefighters dying as a result of this. Afterwards many firefighters reported issues with cables that they previously didn't mention. You can see how many recommendations came out of it, including the one you seem so unconvinced by.
I did read the report.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see how it could be known that the entanglement with cables was the cause of, or even a major contribution to, the deaths of the two firefighters - the fact that they were found 'entangled with cables' does not, in itself, given any indication of the extent (if any) to which that contributed to their deaths. For example, it might well be that had they not already been dead or incapacitated for other reasons, they could quite easily have 'disentangled' themselves.
Do you know whether the "many firefighters [who] reported issues with cables that they previously didn't mention" indicated whether they had been able to deal fairly easily with those 'issues with cables' at the time or whether, perhaps, they had difficulty in overcoming those issues and therefore regarded the situation as 'life threatening'?
All I'm talking about is the desirability of evidence-based decisions being made, and 'knee jerk' ones avoided. As I said, if it could be shown (on the basis of evidence, rather than just 'association') that entanglement with fallen cables was near the top of the list of addressable causes of the deaths of firefighters (even if not many), I would fully support the view that addressing the issue was justifiably given a high priority. However, as you say, I'm not convinced that such was the case.
Basing conclusions and decisions on 'associations' with
out proof of a causative relationship is common and dangerous (and one of the most common 'abuses' of statistics).
Kind Regards, John
Edit: crucial typo corrected