Helmet saved my life yesterday

[theclaud]

i think you understand what i meant, isnt hard to work out for most people, as I said, im trying to point out that people should be able to offer opinions and have discussions without others trying to ridicule

What if they are, well... ridiculous?

Actually, jesting aside, I'm not sure I can remember what your opinions about helmets are. All I can now recall is you banging on about some imaginary foe who is apparently preventing you from airing them.

 

[Red Light]

I agree with the majority of your reply, I would however add that your presuming the evidence is beyond any doubt.

You held one opinion, was convinced otherwise and I respect that. I ask people to respect that there are others who have not been convinced to change their mind. Each are equally valid IMO

So if you disagree with the evidence presented then come back at it with your own evidence to counter it. Unfortunately though the best comeback the pro-helmet brigade seem to have come up with is accusations of being anti-helmet or quoting the totally discredited Thompson Rivara and Thompson paper.

And I am quite happy for others to continue to hold their own personal opinions but if they want to assert them as facts for others to follow then they had better be prepared to defend them with evidence (not anecdote note) rather than just rubbish it.

 

[david k]

My modification was quite clear. If someone wants to state their opinion as fact then they need to provide the evidence that backs up that it is fact.

Then we agree, what often happens though is somebody states it as opinion and its countered/questioned/ridiculed under the defense of 'you cannot state facts unless backed up" This is the point I am making, people really should understand the difference between somebody stating their own opinion and saying its their own opinion and somebody claiming facts

I have no problem with people holding personal opinions that the world is flat, that homoeopathy will cure cancer, that a reptilian Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity or even that helmets are a safety benefit when cycling. If however they want to state it as fact and moreover seek to persuade others of its factuality then they need to provide the evidence for it.

I wouldnt disagree but feel you are a little heavy on the facts and evidence thing. I think the larger the impact of a 'fact' then the greater the evidence thats required. I also would point out there is a difference between "persuade others" and "share opinions with others"

Now on helmets most everything I have posted has been backed up with research evidence

You have supplied evidence but many question its value as there are so many variables. You may accept it without question and thats your right, others also have the right to doubt it and continue to hold their opinion until proved otherwise.

whereas the evidence for helmet use has been mainly restricted to "you must be mad not to", "its obvious innit" and "how dare you question it".

Think you are exaggerating the point there, this is were discussions break down, claims by one side or the other that the opposing view is extreme

 

[david k]

So if you disagree with the evidence presented then come back at it with your own evidence to counter it. Unfortunately though the best comeback the pro-helmet brigade seem to have come up with is accusations of being anti-helmet or quoting the totally discredited Thompson Rivara and Thompson paper.

And I am quite happy for others to continue to hold their own personal opinions but if they want to assert them as facts for others to follow then they had better be prepared to defend them with evidence (not anecdote note) rather than just rubbish it.

If somebody holds one point of view it is for people questioning it to convince them otherwise

 

[david k]

What if they are, well... ridiculous?

Actually, jesting aside, I'm not sure I can remember what your opinions about helmets are. All I can now recall is you banging on about some imaginary foe who is apparently preventing you from airing them.

Wasnt banging on, made one post and some posters asked me about it, so i explained. Seems you cannot please some people, if i didnt reply i would be called ignorant, when i do im 'banging on about it'!

No imaginary foe, nobody preventing me from offering my views, they have been shared time and again, just pointing out in a follow up to a previous post that this has been a tactic of some pro helmet posters. This in turn reduces the thread often to a farce and ultimately insults and ridicule

 

[Red Light]

You have supplied evidence but many question its value as there are so many variables. You may accept it without question and thats your right, others also have the right to doubt it and continue to hold their opinion until proved otherwise.

Well if you question its value then lets discuss why you question it and what evidence you want to put forward for the counter view. That's how science works. But so far I've seen very little of that. What I have seen though is those without any evidence using the tactic of repeatedly saying a childish "But Why?" to every explanation that is given or when they get an explanation ignoring it and moving the goalposts to another part of the field.

 

[Red Light]

If somebody holds one point of view it is for people questioning it to convince them otherwise

Not in the field of health and safety its not. Its for the person proposing a safety intervention to a) show that there is a safety risk that needs tackling and b) that their proposed intervention will have a positive impact on safety. Its not for everyone else to show their intervention does not work or worsens safety although the helmet promoters continually try to reverse the burden of proof in that way.

 

[david k]

Well if you question its value then lets discuss why you question it and what evidence you want to put forward for the counter view. That's how science works. But so far I've seen very little of that. What I have seen though is those without any evidence using the tactic of repeatedly saying a childish "But Why?" to every explanation that is given or when they get an explanation ignoring it and moving the goalposts to another part of the field.

sigh, your falling back into the very exact ridicule scenario i was talking about, calling those who dont agree with your evidence "childish"

 

[david k]

Not in the field of health and safety its not. Its for the person proposing a safety intervention to a) show that there is a safety risk that needs tackling and b) that their proposed intervention will have a positive impact on safety. Its not for everyone else to show their intervention does not work or worsens safety although the helmet promoters continually try to reverse the burden of proof in that way.

presuming the safety intervention is being proposed, in this case it is already accepted as the default position and therefore people countering it will need to do the convincing

 

[Red Light]

sigh, your falling back into the very exact ridicule scenario i was talking about, calling those who dont agree with your evidence "childish"

No I am not. I am characterising a typical strategy employed by some of the pro-helmet community not to actually debate but like a child that repetitively asks "Why?" ask for an explanation of this and then when given an explanation pick on part of it and ask for an explanation of that ad nauseam. The strategy seems to be to tie the otherside up in doing a lot of work while doing nothing themselves but ask "But why?".

If you think I am wrong perhaps you could point to those who have come back with evidence of their own about the benefits of helmets in this thread.

 

[Red Light]

presuming the safety intervention is being proposed, in this case it is already accepted as the default position and therefore people countering it will need to do the convincing

If you think helmet wearing is the default position then you need to provide the evidence for that. AFAIK helmet wearing is not the default here or anywhere else that doesn't have a mandatory helmet law. The UK figures are around one third wear a helmet. Which says the default position is one of not wearing.

 

[david k]

No I am not. I am characterising a typical strategy employed by some of the pro-helmet community not to actually debate but like a child that repetitively asks "Why?" ask for an explanation of this and then when given an explanation pick on part of it and ask for an explanation of that ad nauseam. The strategy seems to be to tie the otherside up in doing a lot of work while doing nothing themselves but ask "But why?".

If you think I am wrong perhaps you could point to those who have come back with evidence of their own about the benefits of helmets in this thread.

It is difficult having a discussion when anything short of absolute proof is considered 'childish'

Im not sure why people need proof to hold an opinion, you said just before you have no problem with people holding an opinion and then demand proof? Its as if your trying to prove my original point for me

 

[david k]

If you think helmet wearing is the default position then you need to provide the evidence for that. AFAIK helmet wearing is not the default here or anywhere else that doesn't have a mandatory helmet law. The UK figures are around one third wear a helmet. Which says the default position is one of not wearing.

A poll on here a short time ago suggested it was. Most official (if not all) rides and training events expect you to wear a helmet. Therefore I would say it is the default position. Even if it wasnt as you agreed earlier people dont have to provide evidence to have an opinion, despite you claiming that is a persons right you continue to demand evidence, this is persistently contradictory

 

[Red Light]

A poll on here a short time ago suggested it was. Most official (if not all) rides and training events expect you to wear a helmet. Therefore I would say it is the default position. Even if it wasnt as you agreed earlier people dont have to provide evidence to have an opinion, despite you claiming that is a persons right you continue to demand evidence, this is persistently contradictory

A poll on Cyclechat is a bit of fluff with no statistical validity to the general population of cyclists. Sorry to disappoint you. And events are driven by insurance companies not by evidence. So neither represent the default position of cyclists when able to make a free choice on the matter. That is given by the national helmet wearing figures which are about one third. But you are welcome to hold an opinion that it is the default position, just not to present it as fact without evidence to back it up that is more than a Cyclechat poll.

 

[ufkacbln]

agreed, i was referring to people ridiculing opinions not questioning them

theclaud and anyone else not following (or pretending not to follow in an attempt to be humorous), ask yourself this question.

Do you think people should be allowed to hold an opinion without having hard facts and evidence to back it up?

Then substitute the word 'opinion' for 'advice' and see if you get the same answer

This has been clearly disproven before.

Personal opinion is fine, if it affects only you. However if you decide to try and encourage that "opinion" to be taken up by others then there should be some evidence to support that. Especially when ( as has happened in the past) the "opinion" is clearly shown by the "evidence" to be wrong to the point of endangering anyone who accepted it!

People should be able to make an informed decision, the magic word being "informed"