Risk and Freedom

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 2:11am

I always wear a helmet when I'm cycling. They should definitely be mandatory.

pwa
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby pwa » 14 Sep 2020, 6:09am

The logic of this line of thought is that PPE should be removed from all situations in order to make people more aware of their exposure to danger. Building sites, for example. Make them safer by banning hard hats and steel toe cap boots! Except that would be ridiculous because building sites have been getting safer, not more dangerous, as the use of PPE has increased. I'm guessing, but I'd suggest that is more down to safer practices all round, rather than the PPE itself. But it does show that safety can improve alongside increasing use of PPE. It does not have to be the case that PPE stops people thinking about other safe practices.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby pjclinch » 14 Sep 2020, 8:15am

pwa wrote:The logic of this line of thought is that PPE should be removed from all situations in order to make people more aware of their exposure to danger. Building sites, for example. Make them safer by banning hard hats and steel toe cap boots! Except that would be ridiculous because building sites have been getting safer, not more dangerous, as the use of PPE has increased. I'm guessing, but I'd suggest that is more down to safer practices all round, rather than the PPE itself. But it does show that safety can improve alongside increasing use of PPE. It does not have to be the case that PPE stops people thinking about other safe practices.


Building sites are, by very definition, unfinished. Because they are unfinished they are inherently less predictable places than most, and combining that with lots of serious machinery makes them relatively dangerous places. Why wear a hard hat? there might be low scaffolding bars at routine head-head in places with no lights installed yet. Why not bother in the finished building? Because the roofs are all 8 feet up and the corridors are well lit.
If you look at risk management systems they place PPE at the bottom of the pile and they put engineering the risks out higher up. On a building site it's harder to removed the risk with engineering because you haven't finished doing the engineering yet, so you've brought up a false equivalence. Another place where everyone routinely wears PPE is potholing and caving. Why not re-engineer the caves? Because then you'd destroy the very thing you wanted to experience. Having said that you'll find discreet recessed bolt hangers for ladder & rope anchors because they have minimal visual and environmental impact and they do give you predictable places to hang your lines. But everyone will wear wellies with steel toe caps and hard hats.

PPE does have its place, but that place is where you can't reasonably tackle the main risks in other ways.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

tim-b
Posts: 1552
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby tim-b » 14 Sep 2020, 11:01am

Hi
Taking the PPE discussion onto our roads network and some of the poorly engineered cycling "safety" features that are to be found there, then consideration of PPE becomes a reality
Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 11:27am

Interesting cover to the professor's book (the one referred to in the very first post in this exposition). I wonder if he does seaside postcards in his time off.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29481
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby thirdcrank » 14 Sep 2020, 11:33am

Be careful what you say, unless you want the thread banishing to the helmet oubliette

Mike Sales
Posts: 5192
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby Mike Sales » 14 Sep 2020, 11:35am

mikeymo wrote:I always wear a helmet when I'm cycling. They should definitely be mandatory.


Nobody is suggesting that you should be prevented from wearing one.
Suggesting compulsion is perverse in view of the evidence from the countries where they are mandated and the assessment of the evidence by Spiegelhalter and Goldacre.
You have been posting your opinion for some time, and ought to have read the replies.
Are you trolling?

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 11:39am

Mike Sales wrote:
mikeymo wrote:I always wear a helmet when I'm cycling. They should definitely be mandatory.


Nobody is suggesting that you should be prevented from wearing one.
Suggesting compulsion is perverse in view of the evidence from the countries where they are mandated and the assessment of the evidence by Spiegelhalter and Goldacre.
You have been posting your opinion for some time, and ought to have read the replies.
Are you trolling?


You have been posting your opinion for some time, and ought to have read the replies.

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 11:45am

Mike Sales wrote:Are you trolling?


Ah, that lame old reply. "Somebody doesn't agree with me, I'll call them a troll". This isn't Facebook, you know.

You seem to be very keen on rationality. Until somebody has a contrary opinion. Then you dismiss them as a "troll". So much for reason, eh?

Your attachment to rationality would look more convincing if you didn't engage in name calling. I'm sure it must be tiresome for you to have to keep representing your evidence, but that's the way it works. If your arguments are sound, thats what you have to do.

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 11:54am

thirdcrank wrote:Be careful what you say, unless you want the thread banishing to the helmet oubliette


Which is exactly where it should be. The OP may think people are fooled by this thinly disguised attempt to start another discussion about helmets, but I don't suppose they are, really, however much they go along with the charade.

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 11:55am

pjclinch wrote:
pwa wrote:The logic of this line of thought is that PPE should be removed from all situations in order to make people more aware of their exposure to danger. Building sites, for example. Make them safer by banning hard hats and steel toe cap boots! Except that would be ridiculous because building sites have been getting safer, not more dangerous, as the use of PPE has increased. I'm guessing, but I'd suggest that is more down to safer practices all round, rather than the PPE itself. But it does show that safety can improve alongside increasing use of PPE. It does not have to be the case that PPE stops people thinking about other safe practices.


Building sites are, by very definition, unfinished. Because they are unfinished they are inherently less predictable places than most, and combining that with lots of serious machinery makes them relatively dangerous places. Why wear a hard hat? there might be low scaffolding bars at routine head-head in places with no lights installed yet. Why not bother in the finished building? Because the roofs are all 8 feet up and the corridors are well lit.
If you look at risk management systems they place PPE at the bottom of the pile and they put engineering the risks out higher up. On a building site it's harder to removed the risk with engineering because you haven't finished doing the engineering yet, so you've brought up a false equivalence. Another place where everyone routinely wears PPE is potholing and caving. Why not re-engineer the caves? Because then you'd destroy the very thing you wanted to experience. Having said that you'll find discreet recessed bolt hangers for ladder & rope anchors because they have minimal visual and environmental impact and they do give you predictable places to hang your lines. But everyone will wear wellies with steel toe caps and hard hats.

PPE does have its place, but that place is where you can't reasonably tackle the main risks in other ways.

Pete.


As a matter of interest, have you spent much time working on building sites?

Mike Sales
Posts: 5192
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby Mike Sales » 14 Sep 2020, 12:22pm

mikeymo wrote:You seem to be very keen on rationality. Until somebody has a contrary opinion. Then you dismiss them as a "troll". So much for reason, eh?



My opinion, but also the opinion of the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, who you may have heard of advising us on Covid. I am sure you have good reason to dismiss his conclusions on cycle helmets.
I only asked if you were trolling. Perhaps you thought throwing helmets into a more general discussion would add something useful. Helmets and compulsion are well known to be an incendiary topic here, and liable to get a disussion moved to what Third Crank called "the oubliette".

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 1:17pm

Mike Sales wrote:
mikeymo wrote:You seem to be very keen on rationality. Until somebody has a contrary opinion. Then you dismiss them as a "troll". So much for reason, eh?



My opinion, but also the opinion of the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, who you may have heard of advising us on Covid. I am sure you have good reason to dismiss his conclusions on cycle helmets.
I only asked if you were trolling. Perhaps you thought throwing helmets into a more general discussion would add something useful. Helmets and compulsion are well known to be an incendiary topic here, and liable to get a disussion moved to what Third Crank called "the oubliette".


I'm not fooled for one minute that you were starting a "general discussion". You knew perfectly well what you were doing - using a set of arguments about risk compensation, et al, which support your frequently stated point of view on helmets. You deliberately started a discussion which, in the context of cycling, is about helmets, but didn't have the grace to start it where it should be, in the helmets section. By all means have your discussions in that section, that's what it's there for. But you seem determined to expand your crusade outside the arena which has been set up for you. And the mods seem prepared, unsurprisignly, to collude in your disingenuous posting.

I haven't discussed the "Winton Professor's" conclusions. Though feel free to tell me what they are. Or perhaps your answer is the usual - "just google it, I'm tired of repeating it". By the way, on the subject of professors, you are aware of the fallacy of "argument from authority", aren't you? It doesn't make any argument more correct because a "professor" makes it, however impressive you think the title is. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, for instance.

Mike Sales
Posts: 5192
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby Mike Sales » 14 Sep 2020, 1:26pm

mikeymo wrote:
I'm not fooled for one minute that you were starting a "general discussion". You knew perfectly well what you were doing - using a set of arguments about risk compensation, et al, which support your frequently stated point of view on helmets. You deliberately started a discussion which, in the context of cycling, is about helmets, but didn't have the grace to start it where it should be, in the helmets section. By all means have your discussions in that section, that's what it's there for. But you seem determined to expand your crusade outside the arena which has been set up for you. And the mods seem prepared, unsurprisignly, to collude in your disingenuous posting.

I haven't discussed the "Winton Professor's" conclusions. Though feel free to tell me what they are. Or perhaps your answer is the usual - "just google it, I'm tired of repeating it". By the way, on the subject of professors, you are aware of the fallacy of "argument from authority", aren't you? It doesn't make any argument more correct because a "professor" makes it, however impressive you think the title is. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, for instance.


I am interested in Risk Homeostasis because it bears on many more aspects of Road Danger than helmets.
For instance, on the idea that making drivers less physically vulnerable to the dangers of their risk taking is without impact (!) on their risk taking propensities.
You would do well to read Risk and Freedom and gain a better understanding of Adams's ideas.

I think that helmets are more or less irrelevant to safety for cyclists, and a diversion from approaches that do work. Compare cyclist casualty rates in the Antipodes with those in other northen European countries.
Helmets divert attention from the policies which do work.
You are more fixated on them than I.

Here again is part of the concusions of Goldacre and Spiegelhalter in their BMJ editorial.

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.


https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

This particular authority is a past president of the Statistical Society who has been appointed to explain risk to the public, and whose judgement is felt good enough to inform the regulations about Covid which we are all urged to follow. Do you dismiss the advice on masks and distancing too?
I think that if helmets work, it should be easy to tell. Certainly benefits "too modest to capture" are not good enough to force us to wear them.

mikeymo
Posts: 1390
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Risk and Freedom

Postby mikeymo » 14 Sep 2020, 2:21pm

Mike Sales wrote:You would do well to read Risk and Freedom and gain a better understanding of Adams's ideas.


Yes, I've downloaded it. But I just can't get any further than the saucy picture on the front: