There will be errors in this blog. There will be spelling errors, syntax errors, grammatical errors and maybe the occasional error of judgement (and too many brackets (in one of my lives, I am a programmer)). There will also, without doubt, be factual errors. However, I will be more than happy to change my views and opinions if I am shown evidence of what I have written is incorrect.
Evidence (noun)
From the Oxford Dictionaries ("The world's most trusted dictionaries" - how do I find the evidence to support the statement?), evidence is defined thus:
There have been many stories that I thought would inspire me towards my first post, but in the end it was a simple tweet from Beverley Turner, a journalist, wife, mother and probably all round good (but knackered) person. Most likely a very smart cookie, yet seems somewhat taken aback by the response to her suggestion helmets should be mandatory for people on bicycles.
This being the internet, of course anything you say will get the usual vociferous responses from a vocal few (I'm not sure why Beverley found that BIZARRE). Many also thought it was in poor taste (some might say crass) to use Schumacher's off piste skiing head injury as a jumping point for her article.
Yet there were also some very measured responses pointing towards the evidence that helmet compulsion was detrimental to health of the nation. I have not seen any response or column inches given to this evidence by Beverley or any other journalist. Does anecdote trump evidence in the search for the journalists version of the truth?
I understand how close this is to Beverley's heart, after all, anecdotally, her husband owes his life to a helmet. I have no issue with her advising others to wear helmets or to state she would not allow her children to ride without helmets.
When I say, I understand, let me explain: My grandmother was hit on the head by an unsecured lorry door whilst walking on the pavement. She died not long afterwards, not directly from the injury but as a result of the debilitated state she was left in. This has not made me a supporter of mandatory helmets for pedestrians. It has made me very aware of my responsibilities as a driver for my vehicle and it's load.
A fair portion of one of my lives has been spent working in an environment where injuries were frequent and almost accepted as 'part of the job'. Somehow, I came through unscathed, but with a few lucky near misses. I was fortunate that my college tutors were enlightened long before the Health and Safety Executive achieved a degree of success. This was their mantra:
I have tweeted this image as a response a couple of times. I could probably post it every day.
The empirical evidence in every dangerous industry or environment shows that the maximum benefit is from elimination of risk. Note the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is right down there at the narrow 'minimal effectiveness' end of the scale. From the horses mouth: "Only use PPE as a last resort".
Next time any journalist, blogger or spokesperson feels they want to save peoples lives, please campaign for what is proven to work. Do not be a distraction to policy makers because you have (or have heard) an anecdote. Focus on where you can achieve maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. Start at the top of the chart and as you influence improvements to policy, work your way down,
The 'developed' world has some massive issues to address. Mandatory helmets for people on bicycles addresses none of them. It is a dangerous distraction that will result in a greater risk to a greater number of people.
Is that a goal worthy of column inches?
A huge amount of time and energy continues to be devoted to addressing the minimal effectiveness of advocating mandatory helmets for people on bicycles. That time and energy would be far better focussed on productive advocacy that will improve the health and well-being of the nation.
Now that is a goal worth pursuing.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Anecdote (noun)
Once again from OED, anecdote:
a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person
There have been many stories that I thought would inspire me towards my first post, but in the end it was a simple tweet from Beverley Turner, a journalist, wife, mother and probably all round good (but knackered) person. Most likely a very smart cookie, yet seems somewhat taken aback by the response to her suggestion helmets should be mandatory for people on bicycles.
This being the internet, of course anything you say will get the usual vociferous responses from a vocal few (I'm not sure why Beverley found that BIZARRE). Many also thought it was in poor taste (some might say crass) to use Schumacher's off piste skiing head injury as a jumping point for her article.
Yet there were also some very measured responses pointing towards the evidence that helmet compulsion was detrimental to health of the nation. I have not seen any response or column inches given to this evidence by Beverley or any other journalist. Does anecdote trump evidence in the search for the journalists version of the truth?
I understand how close this is to Beverley's heart, after all, anecdotally, her husband owes his life to a helmet. I have no issue with her advising others to wear helmets or to state she would not allow her children to ride without helmets.
When I say, I understand, let me explain: My grandmother was hit on the head by an unsecured lorry door whilst walking on the pavement. She died not long afterwards, not directly from the injury but as a result of the debilitated state she was left in. This has not made me a supporter of mandatory helmets for pedestrians. It has made me very aware of my responsibilities as a driver for my vehicle and it's load.
A fair portion of one of my lives has been spent working in an environment where injuries were frequent and almost accepted as 'part of the job'. Somehow, I came through unscathed, but with a few lucky near misses. I was fortunate that my college tutors were enlightened long before the Health and Safety Executive achieved a degree of success. This was their mantra:
I have tweeted this image as a response a couple of times. I could probably post it every day.
The empirical evidence in every dangerous industry or environment shows that the maximum benefit is from elimination of risk. Note the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is right down there at the narrow 'minimal effectiveness' end of the scale. From the horses mouth: "Only use PPE as a last resort".
Next time any journalist, blogger or spokesperson feels they want to save peoples lives, please campaign for what is proven to work. Do not be a distraction to policy makers because you have (or have heard) an anecdote. Focus on where you can achieve maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. Start at the top of the chart and as you influence improvements to policy, work your way down,
The 'developed' world has some massive issues to address. Mandatory helmets for people on bicycles addresses none of them. It is a dangerous distraction that will result in a greater risk to a greater number of people.
Is that a goal worthy of column inches?
Now that is a goal worth pursuing.
No comments:
Post a Comment