Guardian diary notices Martlew

Mark McN said:

For them as wants the site: tinyurl.com2583fOpen ↗

My reply sent this AM:

How foolish to suggest that Eric Martlew's bill will
criminalise children. Of course it won't.

It'll criminalise their parents. Or teachers. Or friends who
happen to be over 16. Or the employees of the local bike
shop. Or you, if you happen to lend your bike to someone
under 16 who then decides to ride it without a helmet. Why
do you think cycle traders, who after all sell helmets, are
against this stupid bill? Not only will it decimate cycling,
as it has in every other country where it's been tried, it
will raise the very real prospect of criminal convictions
for shop staff.

It is, in short, a very draconian bill. A very large sledge
hammer to crack a very small nut. Which ignores a huge pile
of much larger nuts which are much easier to crack. And
ignores the existence of several perfectly good nutcrackers,
such as cycle training and CTC's Benchmarking project.

It seeks to solve a problem whose extent is greatly
exaggerated. Around a dozen children a year die of head
injuries due to cycling, around 2,000 are admitted to
hospital in England with head injuries resulting from
cycling. That puts it behind walking, climbing stairs,
banging your head on something, being a pedestrian and even
assault as a cause of child head injury hospitalisations.
There are around six million child cyclists in the UK;
cycling is a low-risk activity which is good for the heart
and combats obesity. Which is why the BMA and the Royal
College of General Practitioners are opposed to the bill.
As are the Association of cycle Traders, British Cycling,
CTC (the national cyclists' organisation), the National
Cycling Strategy Board, the English Regions Cycling
Development Team and just about everybody else in the UK
who is involved in cycling.

But hey, think of the children. It worked in the case of one
child whose mother was persuaded to go to London to campaign
for the bill. She has been informed that a helmet would have
saved her son's life. Well, it's possible, although unlikely
- helmets are not designed to protect in crashes involving
motor vehicles and can't prevent brain injuries caused by
rotational forces, which are the cause of most serious
permanent brain injury. What is certain is that her son's
death would have been markedly less likely if he hadn't been
riding on the pavement. On a bike with defective brakes.
Which is what the coroner's report said, but they keep very
quiet about that.

And that is the problem with the whole helmet compulsion
campaign: it completely ignores the fact that almost all
fatal cyclist injuries are the result of road traffic
crashes. The idea that a plastic hat is a substitute for
safe cycling is both absurd and dangerous, yet that seems to
be precisely what is being suggested. It ignores the known
facts that helmets are only designed to protect in simple
falls, and that half or more of cyclists who die of head
injuries have other mortal injuries as well.

Road traffic crashes account for one in ten child
hospitalisations, but half of child injury deaths. Most of
these are child pedestrians (who suffer, incidentally, a
higher proportion of head injuries overall than child
cyclists); these outnumber cyclist fatalities five times.
Indeed, the entire annual death toll of children in cycling
crashes is less than two days' worth of road traffic
fatalities.

If MPs want to make a real difference to the numbers of
children injured they need to start with the source of
the danger.

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

register this. A handful, mostly from Eric's constituency,
agreed. Did he, we ask him, then take the measured step of
calling one of them and threatening to expose him in the
local media as a gentleman more interested in selling bikes
than saving lives?

ME:Interesting. Not as if the most famous face pushing
for helmets is hawking a rather strange helmet around
the world.

I wonder whether the "facesaver" was designed as a
safety device, or a gimmick that looks a bit like a
formula 1 helmet.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:46:30 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Yet another outstanding effort, Guy. You're one of the few
people on the newsgroups who make me wish I knew 'em in the
real world so I could buy 'em a pint or four.

I take my (imaginary & rather ineffectual) plastic hat
off to you!

Keep up the good work,

Vic.

Vic said:

Yet another outstanding effort, Guy. You're one of the few
people on the newsgroups who make me wish I knew 'em in
the real world so I could buy 'em a pint or four.

<blush>

I think there might be another urcmoot at York this year;
certainly the Chapman Family Tent is being prepared for that
eventuality.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

I'd be very tempted (and if anyone with greater facility
with words than me wants to have a go, feel free) to email
Ms Hyde along the lines of

Hi -

If you want to have another go at Martlew, ask him e.g. why
he wouldn't be better at prioritising staircase helmets
instead, since they would save more lives? Or, isn't his
brilliant sense of political timing beautifully illustrated,
pushing this bill just as everyone's getting concerned at
childhood obesity? Or, since the British Medical Association
is against compulsion since more people would die from lack
of exercise than would be saved by cycle helmets, isn't he
more interested in pushing a single-issue agenda than saving
lives? [Add more anti-compulsion arguments to taste] Yours
ever, MWMcN

It would need to be better than that, but it might do some
good: the Grauniad diary does like to make return trips to
its victims, and I sometimes wonder if the BHIT's shroud-
waving shouldn't be answered with sheer finger-pointing-and-
giggling as well as more sober approaches.

--
Mark, UK. Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail, And say
there is no sin but to be rich; And, being rich, my virtue
then shall be, To say there is no vice, but beggary.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

I think there might be another urcmoot at York this year;
certainly the Chapman Family Tent is being prepared for
that eventuality.

I won't be there for the first time in 13 years. Choral
concert clash :-(

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

Mark McN said:

I'd be very tempted (and if anyone with greater facility
with words than me wants to have a go, feel free) to email
Ms Hyde along the lines of

Hi -

If you want to have another go at Martlew, ask him e.g.
why he wouldn't be better at prioritising staircase
helmets instead, since they would save more lives? Or,
isn't his brilliant sense of political timing beautifully
illustrated, pushing this bill just as everyone's getting
concerned at childhood obesity? Or, since the British
Medical Association is against compulsion since more
people would die from lack of exercise than would be saved
by cycle helmets, isn't he more interested in pushing a
single-issue agenda than saving lives? [Add more anti-
compulsion arguments to taste] Yours ever, MWMcN

It would need to be better than that, but it might do
some good:

Send it like that, its only a hint to the diary writer, they
will write the article after following up your leads.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

Mark McN said:

It would need to be better than that, but it might do some
good: the Grauniad diary does like to make return trips to
its victims, and I sometimes wonder if the BHIT's shroud-
waving shouldn't be answered with sheer finger-pointing-and-
giggling as well as more sober approaches.

It might also be apposite to ask whether putting a plastic
hat on a 5 year old is an appropriate substitute for
supervising them when cycling near working milk tankers..

..d