UK and Europe · Public discussion

Helmets

Started by Just zis Guy, you know? · · Last activity · 46 posts · 1,862 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
4 November 2004
Last activity
11 November 2004
Original author
Just zis Guy, you know?
Posts
46
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,862
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 46
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Martlew stated that he would not be going away, it is widely expected
    that he will try to weasel helmets into a rumoured road safety bill in
    the next session, and here is some more of his bad deeds:

    http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=149713

    Allegedly the BMA has moved away from an evidence-based opposition to
    helmet laws and into support, but since they have not spoken to any of
    the cycling bodies (NCSB, CTC etc.) and no other comment has yet been
    made we don't know if this is just Fat Eric making things up.

    The BMA's Hillman paper on helmets (BMA649, which more or less defined
    their previous opposition) is still promoted in their cycling section.

    I'm guessing Martlew has misconstrued or over-stated something
    (possibly an estimate based on under-reporting, like BeHIT's 50 head
    injury deaths?), but that could well be the triumph of hope over
    experience.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  2. Replying via google groups, so don't blame me for the formatting.

    It seems the BMA _have_ changed their stance. See their release dated
    4 Nov 04 called "BMA calls for tough action to protect the nation's
    health" . Under "Excercise" it says "Lack of exercise is also
    contributing to rising levels of obesity and other health problems.
    Safe cycling networks should be encouraged, and the Government should
    legislate for the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets."

    [censored].

    Tim

  3. Tim Hall said:

    Replying via google groups, so don't blame me for the formatting.

    It seems the BMA _have_ changed their stance. See their release
    dated 4 Nov 04 called "BMA calls for tough action to protect the
    nation's health" . Under "Excercise" it says "Lack of exercise is also
    contributing to rising levels of obesity and other health problems.
    Safe cycling networks should be encouraged, and the Government should
    legislate for the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets."

    [censored].

    So, unfortunately, the best way to stop it would appear to be "don't wear
    one if you are pro-choice".
    Because, otherwise the "50.1% wear them, so a majority are in favour of
    compulsion" logic will be not far behind.

    Which is another "[censored]" situation.

    --
    NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
    Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

  4. "NC" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Tim Hall said:

    Replying via google groups, so don't blame me for the formatting.

    It seems the BMA _have_ changed their stance. See their release
    dated 4 Nov 04 called "BMA calls for tough action to protect the
    nation's health" . Under "Excercise" it says "Lack of exercise is also
    contributing to rising levels of obesity and other health problems.
    Safe cycling networks should be encouraged, and the Government should
    legislate for the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets."

    [censored].

    They never asked me and I'm a BMA member.

    [censored].

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  5. On 4 Nov 2004 09:34:19 -0800, "Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    "BMA calls for tough action to protect the nation's health"

    Got a URL?

    Puzzling that they would put the two in the same document, having
    previously explicitly accepted the detrimental effect of helmet laws
    on levels of cycling.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  6. Just zis Guy said:

    On 4 Nov 2004 09:34:19 -0800, "Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote


    in

    Quoted message said:

    message <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    "BMA calls for tough action to protect the nation's health"

    Got a URL?

    Puzzling that they would put the two in the same document, having
    previously explicitly accepted the detrimental effect of helmet laws
    on levels of cycling.


    <http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/PR%2DBMA+calls+for+tough+action+to+protect+the+nation%27s+health+%2D+04+Nov+2004>

    Lets see if that wraps..

    Otherwise it's currently 4th link on the public access page.
    Helen, do they have a voting procedure on this sort of stuff?

    Tim

  7. Just zis Guy said:

    On 4 Nov 2004 09:34:19 -0800, "Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    "BMA calls for tough action to protect the nation's health"

    Got a URL?

    Puzzling that they would put the two in the same document, having
    previously explicitly accepted the detrimental effect of helmet laws
    on levels of cycling.

    Not just the same document, the same two sentence paragraph.

    http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/
    PR%2DBMA+calls+for+tough+action+to+protect+the+nation%27s+health+%2D+04+Nov+2004

  8. in message <[email hidden]>, Helen Deborah

    Vecht (') said:

    "NC" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Tim Hall said:

    Replying via google groups, so don't blame me for the formatting.

    It seems the BMA _have_ changed their stance. See their release
    dated 4 Nov 04 called "BMA calls for tough action to protect the
    nation's health" . Under "Excercise" it says "Lack of exercise is
    also contributing to rising levels of obesity and other health
    problems. Safe cycling networks should be encouraged, and the
    Government should legislate for the compulsory wearing of cycle
    helmets."

    They never asked me and I'm a BMA member.

    Well, express your opinion forcefully. The BMA's stated position matters
    a lot on this issue, and if some jobsworth has decided off his own bat
    and without consultation to change policy, he needs to be leapt upon
    from a very great height. Tell him he can wear a cycle helmet if he
    likes, it isn't going to save him.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
    ;; Jim Morrison

  9. On 4 Nov 2004 13:20:25 -0800, "Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    <http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/PR%2DBMA+calls+for+tough+action+to+protect+the+nation%27s+health+%2D+04+Nov+2004>

    Roger Geffen beat you to it :-/

    My betting is some zealot exceeding their remit.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  10. "Tim Hall" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:

    Otherwise it's currently 4th link on the public access page.
    Helen, do they have a voting procedure on this sort of stuff?

    Possibly at their Annual Representative Meeting, with which I've never
    been involved.

    They're working fairly hard on the anti-smoking line at present and are
    getting members involved with that.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  11. On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:04:39 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    Possibly at their Annual Representative Meeting, with which I've never
    been involved.

    Maybe, but this is a very spectacular volte-face given that they have
    produced two position papers in the past coming down against
    compulsion precisely because it undermines the health benefits of
    cycling. To then mention both in the same paragraph is absurd.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  12. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:04:39 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    Possibly at their Annual Representative Meeting, with which I've never
    been involved.

    Maybe, but this is a very spectacular volte-face given that they have
    produced two position papers in the past coming down against
    compulsion precisely because it undermines the health benefits of
    cycling. To then mention both in the same paragraph is absurd.

    This is why I suspect, as you do, that this bit is an individual's feelings,
    rather than an official statement, and it shouldn't be in there. Question
    is, how likely is there to be a retraction?

    cheers,
    clive

  13. Clive George said:

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:04:39 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    Possibly at their Annual Representative Meeting, with which I've


    never

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    been involved.

    Maybe, but this is a very spectacular volte-face given that they


    have

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    produced two position papers in the past coming down against
    compulsion precisely because it undermines the health benefits of
    cycling. To then mention both in the same paragraph is absurd.

    This is why I suspect, as you do, that this bit is an individual's


    feelings,

    Quoted message said:

    rather than an official statement, and it shouldn't be in there.


    Question

    Quoted message said:

    is, how likely is there to be a retraction?

    if this is correct (and I hope it is) then there is possibly more than
    one PR staffer chucking out throw-away comments about how effective
    helmets are)

    best wishes
    james

    see here (extract below)

    <url:
    http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/media18jan?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,helmet

    Quoted message said:

    ....Patients encouraged to 'shop around' for emergency care
    Last Friday health minister Rosie Winterton launched the Department's
    'Get the right treatment' campaign at a conference on emergency
    care organised by the NHS Confederation 7. The four posters provide
    handy life-skills advice, some of which is paraphrased below -

    * if your child picks up fleas from the family cat, take the cat to
    the vet and the child to the pharmacist
    * after a cycling accident, take your bicycle to the cycle repair
    shop and your grazed arm to the nearest NHS walk-in centre (assuming
    you have reduced the risk of major head injury because, unlike the
    cyclist in the poster, you are wearing a helmet) ...

  14. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Martlew stated that he would not be going away, it is widely expected
    that he will try to weasel helmets into a rumoured road safety bill in
    the next session, and here is some more of his bad deeds:

    http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=149713

    In the article Sue Marks is quoted as saying:

    Quoted message said:

    The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has
    already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect
    on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case
    for introducing legislation in the UK.

    Recent evidence has indicated that the introduction of compulsory
    legislation does not have a significant negative effect on cycling levels.
    Such legislation in the UK should not discourage cyclists and lead to a more
    sedentary lifestyle with consequent health risks.

    Both these statements appear to contradict the evidence I know of.
    Does anyone know what her sources are?

    --
    Dave...

  15. "Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    This is why I suspect, as you do, that this bit is an individual's feelings,
    rather than an official statement, and it shouldn't be in there.

    Then why would Sue Marks go out of her way to write to Fat Eric to
    pass on the good news? I'd love to know what htis "new evidence" is.

    --
    Dave...

  16. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use
    has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial
    effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly
    supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.

    Recent evidence has indicated that the introduction of compulsory
    legislation does not have a significant negative effect on cycling
    levels. Such legislation in the UK should not discourage cyclists and
    lead to a more sedentary lifestyle with consequent health risks.

    Both these statements appear to contradict the evidence I know of.
    Does anyone know what her sources are?

    At a guess she's looking at the drop in head injuries, but not at the
    corresponding drop in numbers cycling. For the second, she's pointing
    out that after a decade or so there are now as many people cycling in
    Australia as there were pre-compulsion but deliberately not considering
    whether numbers cycling would be higher.

    Presumably the BMA will have a position paper on it..

  17. Mark Thompson said:

    Presumably the BMA will have a position paper on it..

    They do, and it says the exact opposite. It is incredible that they
    seem to be claiming that deterrence does not happen, just when the
    idea of deterrence has become the orthodox view.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  18. "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    see here (extract below)


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    * after a cycling accident, take your bicycle to the cycle repair
    shop and your grazed arm to the nearest NHS walk-in centre (assuming
    you have reduced the risk of major head injury because, unlike the
    cyclist in the poster, you are wearing a helmet) ...

    Those are Rosie Winterton's words, not an official pronouncement from
    the BMA. Besides, I believe the BMA's (former) position was that
    helmets may be effective in reducing injuries but compulsion would
    decrease public health by more than the reduction in injuries would
    increase it. Apparently some new convincing evidence has turned up
    that no-one else has heard of.

    And what's this sudden [censored] about safe cycle networks? Another attempt
    to make cycling on the road appear too dangerous? It sounds to me as
    if some politicking has been going on and the BMA has been leant on.

    --
    Dave...

  19. BeHIT have put out a gloating press release, again alluding to new
    evidence. I watch these things pretty closely and have not seen any,
    so I assmue this is a figleaf to cover the volte-face given that the
    evidence has moved, if anything, further against compulsion following
    the experience of Canada.

    Excuse me for a moment.

    [censored]! THEY DON'T EVEN CYCLE! WHY CAN'T THEY GO AWAY AND [censored]
    ABOUT WITH SOMETHING THEY UNDERSTAND????

    Right, normal service resumed....

    Note that the "noted for editors" includes two of the four claims
    about which I complained to the ASA. They are worded very slightly
    differently, but the substantive claim is identical.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    DOCTORS SUPPORT COMPULSORY CYCLE HELMETS FOR ALL

    THE British Medical Association's decision to take tough action,
    protect
    cyclists' lives and support compulsory cycle helmets for both children
    and
    adults has been welcomed by The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust.

    Until now, the BMA has supported the use of helmets by all cyclists
    but has
    not been in favour of introducing legislation that would make them
    mandatory.

    However, after reviewing the latest scientific evidence, the BMA now
    believes that the arguments against compulsory cycle helmets are no
    longer
    valid.

    Angela Lee, chief executive of The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust,
    said:
    "The Trust is delighted the BMA has finally come out in support of
    cycle
    helmet legislation.

    "The need for mandatory cycle helmets has already been recognised by
    the
    Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child
    Health
    and the Royal College of Surgeons.

    "There is now a concerted effort to get helmets on cyclists' heads and
    particularly children's. Helmets can't prevent accidents but they can
    make a
    difference if a cyclist is involved in an accident particularly
    off-road
    where the majority of children's head injuries are sustained."

    Earlier this year The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust backed the first
    ever
    attempt to introduce a Private Member's Bill, which would have made it
    compulsory for all children under the age of 16 in the UK to wear a
    cycle
    helmet.

    At the time the BMA did not support legislation but the introduction
    of the
    bill persuaded the Association to review its policy.

    Using evidence from those countries where cycle helmets are
    compulsory, the
    BMA has concluded that legislation would help to reduce the number of
    cycle-related deaths and head injuries in the UK.

    The BMA also believes that making helmets compulsory would not have a
    significant negative effect on cycling levels.

    A BMA spokeswoman said: "As with any other legislation, we believe
    that
    enforcement is as important as the law itself and to achieve maximum
    compliance, the legislation should be complemented by mass educational
    and
    promotional campaigns.

    The BMA now wants cycle manufacturers and retailers to consider
    supplying
    free cycle helmets with every bike sold or for the Government to
    subsidise
    the cost of helmets.

    The need for cheaper helmets has already been identified by the The
    Bicycle
    Helmet Initiative Trust.

    Next week, (Monday, November 8) during Road Safety Week, the Trust
    will be
    launching its Concessionary Helmet Voucher Scheme that will enable low
    income families to buy youngsters' cycle helmets for just £3.50.

    ENDS

    Media contact: Amanda Clegg at The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust
    Tel: 0118 958 3585 Mobile: 07771 858166

    Angela Lee at The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust
    Tel: 0118 958 3585 Mobile: 07940 540291

    NOTES TO EDITORS:

    Cycle helmets have been shown to reduce head injury by up to 88 per
    cent
    (Thompson & Revera 1997).

    BHIT estimates that around 22,000 under 16-year-olds in the UK attend
    hospital for a cycling related head injury each year (extrapolated
    from LASS and HASS data).

    BHIT believes teenagers are at greatest risk of cycling related head
    injuries and the group most reluctant to wear a helmet due to peer
    pressure
    and image.

    BHIT is a national registered charity No.1069476 founded in 1998.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  20. Just zis Guy said:

    [censored]! THEY DON'T EVEN CYCLE! WHY CAN'T THEY GO AWAY AND [censored]
    ABOUT WITH SOMETHING THEY UNDERSTAND????

    Because they're too dim to truly understand anything? ;-(

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.