Vorpal wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 8:57am
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
Vorpal wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 8:57am
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
And it makes the presentation of both the evidence and the argument very important.
I'm more interested in influencing the opinion of the general population than that of any cycling group. And there's an easily available and relevant experiment that any of us can do... take the last few pages of this thread and show them to someone who has never seen anything similar before and ask them what they think.
mattheus wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 4:10pm
People - including cyclists - can be self-centred cockwombles.
...
...
...
While I agree with a lot of that I think it's more nuanced than they're just selfish. Cycle training in particular sees a similar problem, but there we have genuinely well meaning people giving up their time to support grass-roots active travel cycling...
In some cases it clearly is that simple. The forums are full of people who say things like: "I've been doing this for 20 years, and so does everyone I ride with, so I don't see the problem".
( The remainder are just seriously blinkered, and most likely control-freak little Hitlers. As for the club board members who deliberately choose not to consult members ... well words fail me at this moment; I need a little time alone with the forum censor software ...)
Vorpal wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 8:57am
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
And it makes the presentation of both the evidence and the argument very important.
I'm more interested in influencing the opinion of the general population than that of any cycling group. And there's an easily available and relevant experiment that any of us can do... take the last few pages of this thread and show them to someone who has never seen anything similar before and ask them what they think.
Jonathan
... or Shirley : - )
Surely we'd need to specify a lot of controls on the conditions for your experiment to make sure it has any value? Have you really thought this through?
Vorpal wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 8:57am
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
And it makes the presentation of both the evidence and the argument very important.
I'm more interested in influencing the opinion of the general population than that of any cycling group. And there's an easily available and relevant experiment that any of us can do... take the last few pages of this thread and show them to someone who has never seen anything similar before and ask them what they think.
Jonathan
... or Shirley : - )
Well yes, I agree in principle Jonathan - who would not. I'd wonder if this is any different to other areas of public policy determination - are there examples where the public, or service users are truly presented with concise, helpful, and objective data to help them form a fact-based opinion? (With, I'd suggest, the honourable exception of the contribution of senior public servants during the recent pandemic)
...and perhaps sadly more to the point, is there any interest in providing such information to properly inform?
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:29am
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
And it makes the presentation of both the evidence and the argument very important.
I'm more interested in influencing the opinion of the general population than that of any cycling group. And there's an easily available and relevant experiment that any of us can do... take the last few pages of this thread and show them to someone who has never seen anything similar before and ask them what they think.
Well yes, I agree in principle Jonathan - who would not. I'd wonder if this is any different to other areas of public policy determination - are there examples where the public, or service users are truly presented with concise, helpful, and objective data to help them form a fact-based opinion? (With, I'd suggest, the honourable exception of the contribution of senior public servants during the recent pandemic)
...and perhaps sadly more to the point, is there any interest in providing such information to properly inform?
Cycling, and possibly transportation in general, might be different from other areas where evidence should be driving policy. Healthcare has changed enormously with the (very recent) introduction of evidence-based methodology, and healthcare practitioners are highly trusted. Education has depressingly little evidence but teachers are highly trusted. How do cycling and transport stack ups on those two axes of evidence and trusted experts?
Jonathan
PS: Goldacre was brought in by a previous UK government to tell them about evidence-based policy, including the use of randomised controlled trials.
PPS: The whole prioritisation model of the NHS in England was based on cost-effectiveness before the outbreak. Many of us think that the same should be done across all public policy, including consistent valuation of life...
Vorpal wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 8:57am
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
Safety/risk issues are a whole special category here. It's very well researched/documented that humans are intuitively terrible at these judgements - it probably also applies to issues like Nuclear Power, or Paedophile-fear etc ...
Vorpal wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 8:57am
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
It's therefore no different to most issues of public policy, shirley?
Safety/risk issues are a whole special category here. It's very well researched/documented that humans are intuitively terrible at these judgements - it probably also applies to issues like Nuclear Power, or Paedophile-fear etc ...
I freely admit that I am not one of those who has 'deep-dived' into the helmet data, because I'm simply not as exercised by it as some others. I would be interested in the kind of analysis that Jonathan has been outlining, because it would avoid me having to do my own mining and sifting.
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 10:20amI freely admit that I am not one of those who has 'deep-dived' into the helmet data, because I'm simply not as exercised by it as some others. I would be interested in the kind of analysis that Jonathan has been outlining, because it would avoid me having to do my own mining and sifting.
Now it gets tricky...
1 The very high benefit/ risk ratio for health of cycling has been repeatedly noted.
2 There will be many interventions to improve safety in transport that have better cost-effectiveness than mandated wearing of helmets for adult cyclists (for which it might be negative). (That's my answer to that specific question. Other questions are available.)
3 The current value for a quality-adjusted life year used by the NHS in England is about £20k to 30k. (It's the principle that matters here rather than the amount.)
4 I have a strong distaste for pontification by posters but without ground rules and adherence to evidence-based methodology this approach shouldn't be expected to make any progress or to influence the wider world. And I'm now as disappointed in this thread as I am in its many predecessors.
European Cycling Federation reported, “The evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous."
Other recent evidence has raised similar concerns.
The evidence for helmet promotion is unreliable and the CTC voted to have the advice the wear one removed from the Code in 1996.
The focus should therefore be on following the example set in the Netherlands that has a cyclist fatality rate per billion km lower than here 8 v 21.
Simple to say but difficult to do. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/ ... europe.pdf
Jdsk wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 9:50am
And it makes the presentation of both the evidence and the argument very important.
I'm more interested in influencing the opinion of the general population than that of any cycling group. And there's an easily available and relevant experiment that any of us can do... take the last few pages of this thread and show them to someone who has never seen anything similar before and ask them what they think.
Well yes, I agree in principle Jonathan - who would not. I'd wonder if this is any different to other areas of public policy determination - are there examples where the public, or service users are truly presented with concise, helpful, and objective data to help them form a fact-based opinion? (With, I'd suggest, the honourable exception of the contribution of senior public servants during the recent pandemic)
...and perhaps sadly more to the point, is there any interest in providing such information to properly inform?
Cycling, and possibly transportation in general, might be different from other areas where evidence should be driving policy. Healthcare has changed enormously with the (very recent) introduction of evidence-based methodology, and healthcare practitioners are highly trusted. Education has depressingly little evidence but teachers are highly trusted. How do cycling and transport stack ups on those two axes of evidence and trusted experts?
PS: Goldacre was brought in by a previous UK government to tell them about evidence-based policy, including the use of randomised controlled trials.
PPS: The whole prioritisation model of the NHS in England was based on cost-effectiveness before the outbreak. Many of us think that the same should be done across all public policy, including consistent valuation of life...
Sometimes it's easier to see the big picture in another domain...
For transport it might not be RCTs but we should always try to gain knowledge as high up the evidence hierarchy as possible. And always identify the level of evidence for any assertion. The hierarchy is different for different purposes, but this sort of thing: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/lev ... march-2009
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑9 Dec 2021, 11:22am
Is it really that simple?
No.
"Follow the Netherlands" might be extremely helpful in identifying candidate interventions and communicating a vision. But it isn't a policy. After identifying the candidates it's then necessary to evaluate the evidence for each. Then the cost-effectiveness. And then the feasibility...
In some ways it is simple, Nl lower rural speed limit, 50 mph, lower drink drive limit, standard of cycling infrastructure higher, focus on key parts and safety in numbers, not focus on helmet requirements. Spending per person on cycling across the country.
UK is slightly moving towards the right approach in some areas but overall is not up to the mark.
