Das erinnert mich an eine Studie der Universität Bordeaux über die positiven Effekte des Trinkens von Rotwein ...
Spaß beiseite - ich finde es bemerkenswert, auf der Website der Uni diesen Ausbruch von Gehässigkeit und Niedermachen anderer zu lesen, wobei nicht eine einzige Zahl genannt wird, die den eigenen Ansatz untermauert:
Zitat von https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/cycling-fatalities-almost-halved-introduction-mandatory-helmet-lawsAlles anzeigen“There was an immediate 46% reduction in the rate of cycling fatalities per 100,000 population following the introduction of bicycle helmet legislation in Australia,” he says.
“This decline has been maintained since 1990 and we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities associated with the introduction of bicycle helmet legislation to date.”
Australia does not have national road laws as such, but after Victoria brought in mandatory helmet laws in 1990 the remaining states and territories had followed suit by 1992. This study is the first in the world to examine the effects of mandatory helmet laws applied on a national scale where those laws apply to all ages and are dutifully enforced.
The findings of the study are in stark contrast with claims made by anti-helmet advocates who believe helmets do not reduce fatalities. Instead, they say that mandatory helmet laws (MHL) have deterred people from cycling and therefore have reduced the number of fatalities only by lowering participation rates.
The authors of the study address this by pointing to numerous international studies including their own that found no strong evidence for MHL leading to fewer people cycling. Emeritus Professor Raphael Grzebieta also of TARS did not mince words when discussing this “ill-informed, small but vocal group of anti-helmet advocates who claim that the MHL has been a disaster for cycling in Australia”.
“This is simply not true,” he says. “These advocates are no different to the climate change deniers and the anti-vaccination groups and belong in that same category of people that do not believe in scientific evidence. It would not matter what you present to such people. They will always live in denial.”
Professor Olivier concurs and says misinformation about helmet laws dissuading people from riding bikes has been present from the beginning, and doesn’t expect the hard-core advocates to be moved by the research.
“It is one of those things where it has been repeated so many times that people just believe it to be true, and won’t question it because they’ve heard it so often,” Professor Olivier says.
“These are the people who have made calls to repeal or weaken bicycle helmet legislation in Australia. The results from this study are not supportive of those initiatives.”
Was hindert die daran, ihre »scientific evidence« zu präsentieren? Also: erstens die Zahlen der Radfahrer vorher und nachher; zweitens repräsentative Erhebung unter denen, die vorher Rad fuhren und nachher nicht mehr, über die Gründe.