Not at all. I have known people to be convinced by the facts and to change their mind. There is certainly a tendency for all discussions like this to entrench the two sides. I do not think that is a good reason to leave contentious subjects alone. The different sides are exposed to the arguments of the other, and if they have any intellectual integrity this can only be a learning process.
I sometimes have the unworthy suspicion that trying to suppress discussion is a way of avoiding exposure to unwelcome truth.
+1
Here's somebody who's been convinced by the facts and changed his mind. Tedious though they may well be, helmet threads are far from useless, they serve a very useful purpose indeed. Helmet evangelists will never relinquish their faith, but folks like myself who used to take the 85-88 per cent claim at face value still have hope.
I've cycled everywhere since I was five and when I started my cycling career in the early eighties helmets were a non-issue. The day I could afford one I started prancing about in my silly Italian cap and felt guilty for not wearing a helmet. My personal learning process started when I began to wonder why it was that countries with high cycling rates had rejected compulsion.
These threads are valuable because they expose helmet advocates to the purifying fire of evidence-based inquiry. More often than not what happens is that helmetists resort to scaremongering along the lines of think of your family and loved ones you selfish tw@t, with a liberal sprinkling of Thompson & Rivara & Thompson 1989.
Medics appear to be some of the worst offenders. What makes them think they're qualified to give lectures about impact mechanics, risk compensation etc just because they know how to patch people up?