Oldjohnw wrote:.....and sometimes multiple pages per thread, I am wondering if:
a) a consensus view will ever be reached, and
b) anyone will be persuaded to a different point of view.
b) yes. I was.
Oldjohnw wrote:.....and sometimes multiple pages per thread, I am wondering if:
a) a consensus view will ever be reached, and
b) anyone will be persuaded to a different point of view.
mjr wrote:Oldjohnw wrote:.....and sometimes multiple pages per thread, I am wondering if:
a) a consensus view will ever be reached, and
b) anyone will be persuaded to a different point of view.
b) yes. I was.
Oldjohnw wrote:I don't really follow your point. I have never told anyone or been told by anyone to either wear or not wear a helmet. If I were I would simply ignore that person.
mattheus wrote:Oldjohnw wrote:I don't really follow your point. I have never told anyone or been told by anyone to either wear or not wear a helmet. If I were I would simply ignore that person.
Sounds like
"I'm all right Jack."
Mike Sales wrote:I've known people change their minds. Those with scientific training in assessing evidence.
Wanlock Dod wrote:Mike Sales wrote:I've known people change their minds. Those with scientific training in assessing evidence.
These people are in a minority, perhaps like those that don't follow a religion, and many of those were happy to believe that helmets were indeed a good thing until they assessed the evidence. Perhaps we should refer to them as apostates.
Oldjohnw wrote:I love it. You say that medics are not scientists then quote a medic!
Oldjohnw wrote:.....and sometimes multiple pages per thread, I am wondering if:
a) a consensus view will ever be reached, and
b) anyone will be persuaded to a different point of view.
In theory, this should be scientific: in reality, I suspect emotions play a significant part in one's viewpoint.
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.
pjclinch wrote:Oldjohnw wrote:.....and sometimes multiple pages per thread, I am wondering if:
a) a consensus view will ever be reached, and
b) anyone will be persuaded to a different point of view.
In theory, this should be scientific: in reality, I suspect emotions play a significant part in one's viewpoint.
Regarding your points, eminent scientists Ben Goldacre and David Spiegelhalter pointed out in a BMJ editorial that: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.
So they're broadly in agreement with your wondering that there won't be consensus and the issues go far beyond black-and-white.
That's not to say it's not worth going on about it though: had the arguments not been dragged in to a morass of "not proven" we'd probably have a helmet law: over the last 20 years (the time I've been concerned with it, having previously been an "it's just common sense!" type for over a decade) the de-facto DfT position has changed from looking to introduce legislation once wearing rates reached a certain critical mass, to really not being interested beyond promotion (and that is being scaled back now).
For (b), aside from myself I've seen quite a lot of people have their minds changed. When it comes to changing minds having done the reading, I'd say the traffic is very, very significantly weighed in the direction from advocacy to scepticism. It should be the case that scientific training opens one's mind to the possibility of being very badly wrong, but scientists are people too and prone to cognitive bias pushing them to thinking they're right by default just like everyone else. And indeed the scientist badge can make it even harder to accept you've got it wrong. I came around having quite specifically headed in to the research library to come up with concrete proof the person telling me that helmets weren't all they were made out to be and I should read the research was a berk, and it wasn't easy to admit it was me who had it wrong.
Pete.
the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose
Oldjohnw wrote:Btw, I do not and have never objected to the thread running on for many more thousands of pages. I'm not quite sure why my innocent and genuine enquiry was jumped on by some.
Mike Sales wrote:Oldjohnw wrote:Btw, I do not and have never objected to the thread running on for many more thousands of pages. I'm not quite sure why my innocent and genuine enquiry was jumped on by some.
I don't think putting a point of view different from yours ought to be called "jumping on you". It is what a forum is for.
I am very conscious that the idea that helmets are not worthwhile and effective is not being made in the world outside some cycling circles. We seem to be moving more and more towards the public consensus that cyclists ought to wear helmets, but my strong belief is that this is bad for the cause of increasing cycling as a public good, which I don't think I need to make here.
Helmet compulsion, and even helmet promotion, lead to cycling being seen as a specialist sport, not an everyday means of transport, and demonstrably lead to a decrease in cycling.
The case against helmets is counterintuitive, and "common sense" says that they must be worthwhile. For this reason, the case against needs to be actively made. In the present climate, neglect of using the science and as much publicity as possible, to put the counter view is leading in the wrong direction. We are becoming, as far as cycling goes, more like Oz or NZ, rather than like Denmark or NL.
The view that debate on the subject is boring and futile is often expressed by those who wear helmets and are happy with being a member of what they see as an elite. They want to shut down opposing views. I am happy to read that you are not of this persuasion, but I hope this will help you understand my motivation in posting as I have.
Oldjohnw wrote:Btw, I do not and have never objected to the thread running on for many more thousands of pages. I'm not quite sure why my innocent and genuine enquiry was jumped on by some.