More from BMA

Just zis Guy said:

It looks like they are frantically trying to justify their [censored] work
with... some more [censored] work.

Trucking tankers. Or something that rhymes with it, anyway.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:30:52 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It looks like they are frantically trying to justify their [censored] work
with... some more [censored] work.

Either that or they have been nobbled by someone or something.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Hansen said:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:30:52 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It looks like they are frantically trying to justify their [censored] work
with... some more [censored] work.

Either that or they have been nobbled by someone or something.

From the highly selective nature of their supporting evidence I'd say
that was rather obvious.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

It looks like they are frantically trying to justify their [censored] work
with... some more [censored] work.

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclhelmet
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclehealth

To: [email hidden]
Subject: Lies, damned lies...

My attention has been drawn to your web pages published at
<URL:http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclhelmet> and
<URL:http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclehealth>.

In the first you quote:
"Each year over 50 people aged 15 years and under are killed by cycling
accidents, with 70-80 per cent of these resulting from traumatic brain
injury."

As I'm sure you are well aware, the figure recorded for the UK for 2002
as a whole is nineteen deaths, of which only ten involved head
injury[1], so the figure you quote is a gross exaggeration. Indeed in
no year in the past decade have 50 children died in the UK in cycling
accidents, so you cannot even pretend that this figure is historically
correct.

In the second you start with the statement:
"Action should be taken to both reduce the high rate of fatal and
serious accidents suffered by cyclists..."

In fact, there is no 'high rate of fatal and serious accidents suffered
by cyclists'. The fatal accident rate for cyclists is only 75% as high
as that for pedestrians (29.5 per billion kilometers as opposed to 44.8
per billion kilometers), and less than a third of that for
motorcyclists who do have to wear helmets[2]. Cycling is not only safer
than walking, it is getting safer faster, with a steady and healthy
downward trend in casualties[3].

Finally, of 114 cyclists of all ages killed in 2003, 61 were involved in
collisions with cars, while 25 were involved in collisions with heavy
goods vehicles; in total 95 deaths resulted from collisions with motor
vehicles.[4] No-one pretends that a cycle helmet would make any useful
difference in accidents of this kind.

In summary, these two documents taken together represent irresponsible
scaremongering, composed of phoney data completely at variance with the
facts. Scaremongering has the inevitable effect of reducing cycling,
and reducing cycling has been shown to increase the risk per cyclist.
So not only are these papers dishonest in their content, they are also
misguided and counterproductive in their intent. By reducing the number
of people cycling the BMA will not only increase the number of people
dying through illnesses related to obesity and lack of exercise, it
will also increase the risk of injury and death to people who do cycle.

I am horrified that the BMA should express views on a public policy
matter on the basis of such shoddy and dishonest research and without,
I understand, bothering to consult its members.

Yours sincerely

Simon Brooke

[1]<URL:http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031110/text/31110w04.htm#31110w04.html_sbhd10>
[2]<URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=272>
[3]<URL:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_507489.hcsp>
[4]<URL:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=11585&l=5>

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

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

Simon Brooke wrote:

[Counterblast to Agnosticism^wBMA]

Top stuff, that man! Five gold stars and fifty house points.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Simon Brooke said:

Finally, of 114 cyclists of all ages killed in 2003, 61 were involved in
collisions with cars, while 25 were involved in collisions with heavy
goods vehicles; in total 95 deaths resulted from collisions with motor
vehicles.[4] No-one pretends that a cycle helmet would make any useful
difference in accidents of this kind.

Oh yes they do! ;-(

Top letter. I posted a hardcopy one on Monday on a similar note, mainly
going on (and on) about how their cited evidence appeared very selective
and dripping in BHIT, and how that was in itself problematical in terms
of trustworthiness.

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/

Dave Larrington said:

[Counterblast to Agnosticism^wBMA]

Top stuff, that man! Five gold stars and fifty house points.

Agreed, that was very succinctly put. Nice work Simon.

I'm anti compulsion myself (anti compulsion on most issues in fact),
and am convinced by the evidence I've seen so far that a cycle helmet
will likely only prevent the kind of injury that I don't really mind
sustaining. My bonce takes a far greater (and regular) mauling on the
rugby field, than when my bike ungraciously chooses to throw me to the
tarmac. My opinion will change of course when they invent a plastic
hat that'll stop me being crushed to death.

Anyway, I generally tend to steer clear of helmet threads but what has
me interested now is the long term results of what seems to be a
gathering of momentum by the pro-compulsion lobby.

It appears the evidence is clear, the BMA *have* got this wrong, and
the postilion taken by BeHit et al will do far more harm than good. It
seems astonishing that the BMA could ally themselves with this camp
and yet it's happened.

Despite reasoned argument by intelligent, qualified individuals and
organisations, supported by compelling evidence and statistics, things
seem to be moving in the wrong bloody direction.

I'm interested to see if in the face of all this wisdom the argument
will continue to head that way and legislation become a reality. This
is modern politics in stark relief and I'm fascinated about the
outcome.

Who shall be the victor... logic, or [censored]?! Tune in next week
for another episode!!

--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:05:08 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No-one pretends that a cycle helmet would make any useful
difference in accidents of this kind.

Wrong. BsHIT do. Excellent letter, however. I'll be interested to see
what reponse you get, if any.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain