helmets from Why wear black?

[Smudgerii]

Those of us that don't/never have worn helmets are essentially the robust data that makes banning helmets a logical solution that should take the choice out of the populations hands. If you chuck in a ban on hi-vis then we know that will massively increase the amount of time police and government both locally and nationally will spend on looking elsewhere. Considering all the crimes plod must have resolved to be spending so much time and effort on handing out hi-vis and BS regarding helmets they can't have anything else to do so must have to then get onto the main problem of the roads because there's nowt else for them to resolve

That extra focus on motorists due to not spending time on harassing people on bikes will increase the safety of motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

So banning helmets is not just good for cyclists, it would also reduce the NHS bill by billions, reduce pollution, reduce the heartache for thousands of families, how can we not ban them, frankly it's socially irresponsible to wear them, and as CUK normalises the wearing of helmets and hi-vis with their continual displaying of helmets in their photos and events and by not condemning helmet wearing are also socially irresponsible and complicit.

How are you any different than those who want to impose hi-vis and helmets on others?

Your arguments are poorly delivered, not to mention delusional, that no balanced decision can be achieved.

Please provide some proof of the events, benefits, cost savings you continually claim.

[Smudgerii]

Do any of these studies ever state who sponsored them? Would help with understanding bias.

But, as long as we have freedom of choice everything will be ok, so who cares about bias..

[Oldjohnw]

Me, I prefer freedom of choice. In my case freedom not to wear a helmet and whatever clothing I choose, whether black, orange or yellow. UC wants a freedom for himself that he wants to make illegal for others.

When I were a lad saving billions was quite a lot of money.

[Smudgerii]

Me, I prefer freedom of choice. In my case freedom not to wear a helmet and whatever clothing I choose, whether black, orange or yellow. UC wants a freedom for himself that he wants to make illegal for others.

When I were a lad saving billions was quite a lot of money.

Mirrors my take on things. Wish we had a thumbs up button

[mikeymo]

Oh for Pete's sake everybody, it's well known that increasing the amount of cycling improves health outcomes for everybody. I mean, look at the figures for cardiovascular disease in the Netherlands compared to the UK, for instance:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... /37359.pdf

I mean, that table on page 2 is as plain as day, isn't it?

Oh, wait...

Mind you, it took me a little while to find the statistics that said what I wanted them to say.

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

[mattheus]

Mind you, it took me a little while to find the statistics that said what I wanted them to say.

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

I suggest that if you don't like research and evidence, then you should stick to your gut instinct.

Just don't bother trying to persuade me that your instinct is right for everyone else, thx.

[Mike Sales]

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

You could always look to the conclusions of experts in risk or epidemiology.

[mikeymo]

Do any of these studies ever state who sponsored them? Would help with understanding bias.

But, as long as we have freedom of choice everything will be ok, so who cares about bias..

I don't think many of the posters here actually read many of these "studies". The reason I say that is that many of the studies are behind academic paywalls. I don't recall anybody saying they couldn't read a study because they couldn't get access (for instance my "Wear a long wig" post). My own academic credentials (such as they are!) usually get me past the paywall for most studies (however distant from my own field of work), so I can only assume that:

1. Most people who post here are actually academics.

or

2. People don't actually read the "studies".

I'm going with 2. There may be a few who read the abstract, but I suspect most simply read the title, see that it looks like it supports their own opinion, and move on.

Though to be fair, you don't often get any actual references here at Strong Opinions R Us. A request for evidence is usually met with "search the forum, it's a FACT", a variant of "just Google it".

[mikeymo]

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

You could always look to the conclusions of experts in risk or epidemiology.

Who were you thinking of? Oh, let me guess, is it (drum roll)....

GOLDACRE AND SPEIGELHALTER!!

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817

They do seem very popular, those two, don't they? Though some people seem to find it difficult to distinguish between an academic study, and an opinion piece in a trade paper, in this case the BMJ. Dr Ben Goldacre's phrase "I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That" is often ignored. Irony is alive and well.

Or at least G&S are popular here, as "evidence" supporting "the case".

Not as popular are Olivier, Grzebieta, Wang, and Walter:

https://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/26_Olivier_PR.pdf

It's strange that that work isn't referred to anything like as often. I wonder why that could be?

[Smudgerii]

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

You could always look to the conclusions of experts in risk or epidemiology.

And they are all impartial, unpaid by interested parties? How can we be sure?

[Mike Sales]

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

You could always look to the conclusions of experts in risk or epidemiology.

And they are all impartial, unpaid by interested parties? How can we be sure?

You can look to their credentials and make your own judgement of them.
Of course, as in the case of the Boeing 737 Max, they may turn out to be partial, but most people still trust the aeronautical engineering has been done right, and carry on flying.

[mikeymo]

Other opinions are, of course, available.

Despite the frequent reference to the G&S piece in the BMJ:

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817

I don't get the impression that anybody actually reads it. We don't see these quote like this, for instance, FROM THE ARTICLE ITSELF, being used:

"Statistical models for the overall impact of helmet habits are therefore inevitably complex and based on speculative assumptions."

Even less do I get the impression that anybody reads the responses to the article:

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817/rapid-responses

Linda M Ward's response contains references that would be worth reading

[Mike Sales]

I don't get the impression that anybody actually reads it. We don't see these quote like this, for instance, FROM THE ARTICLE ITSELF, being used:

"Statistical models for the overall impact of helmet habits are therefore inevitably complex and based on speculative assumptions."

Even less do I get the impression that anybody reads the responses to the article:

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817/rapid-responses

Linda M Ward's response contains references that would be worth reading

I have read them, and decided which I find convincing.

We take much about modern science on this sort of trust, from engineering or medicine to climate change.
Some of the evidence is easy to grasp.
Most bridges stay up, and few planes fall from the sky.
And there is no country where a helmet law has produced a step change in wearing rates has there been demonstrable benefit.
The studies which purport to show efficacy are the ones which loose me in my poor grasp of statistics, and for which S&G
show weaknesses.

[mikeymo]

It's weird, it's almost as if you can find any study that supports your point of view, if you look hard enough and ignore the others.

You could always look to the conclusions of experts in risk or epidemiology.

And they are all impartial, unpaid by interested parties? How can we be sure?

You can't. You don't judge an argument as good or bad based on who made it, or who paid for it. A complete idiot may utter the truth. Or conversely, in the case of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, send people to prison, and ultimately their death, wrongly.

http://www.richardwebster.net/cotdeaths.html

You judge an argument based on the facts that are presented, not on who presents them. That is one of the basics of rationality. The same applies to who pays for a study. It neither validates nor invalidates the conclusion of the study.

Not that you'll find much rationality in these discussions.

[mikeymo]

The studies which purport to show efficacy are the ones which loose me in my poor grasp of statistics, and for which S&G show weaknesses.

Translation:

"I didn't understand something which said I was wrong, so I'll ignore it."

Brilliant.