BHit Getting Defensive
View Full Version : BHit Getting Defensive
Bhit seem to have been a bit put out by something and have replaced
their front page with this:
"You may be aware that a Private Member’s Bill is currently passing through Parliament. The
enactment of the Bill will make the wearing of helmets mandatory for all children riding bicycles.
We entirely endorse and support this Bill as it helps ensure the safety and well being of children.
It has come to our attention that we are being quoted out of context on a number of websites
attempting to demonstrate their opposition to helmet wearing.
The following links will direct you to websites, which detail the efficacy of helmets from
independent organisations. All the research is peer vetted and none based on opinion from an
individual or group...."
I wonder who's put the wind up 'em?
> Bhit seem to have been a bit put out by something and have replaced
> their front page with this:
Was having a look at the websites they listed. The American counterpart seems to survive on $12,000
of donated money a year, and with volunteers donating their time. BHIT on the other hand has
swallowed how much public money?!?!
On another, clicked on a link to: http://www.capt.org.uk/pdfs/factsheet%20cycle.doc
Under 'how can cycling be made safer for children' doesn't mention training at all! It mentions
cycle lanes, speed restrictions, traffic calming schemes, safety gear, bright clothing, checking the
bike and saddle height. Completely forgets about a cycling proficiency test or similar! Ho hum.
Mark Thompson wrote:
>>Bhit seem to have been a bit put out by something and have replaced their front page with this:
>
> Was having a look at the websites they listed. ...
>
> On another, clicked on a link to: http://www.capt.org.uk/pdfs/factsheet%20cycle.doc
>
> Under 'how can cycling be made safer for children' doesn't mention training at all! It mentions
> cycle lanes, speed restrictions, traffic calming schemes, safety gear, bright clothing,
> checking the bike and saddle height. Completely forgets about a cycling proficiency test or
> similar! Ho hum.
>
I emailed CAPT (Child Accident Prevention Trust) a few weeks ago inquiring how helmets prevent
accidents. I got a very ratty reply because I also said in so many words that BHIT were lying about
the benefits of helmets. There was no reply to my main point.
Colin McKenzie
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:05:59 +0000, "[Not Responding]"
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
<9i1v30por8861ir7e3bn7bql8tifppfgbu@4ax.com>:
>Bhit seem to have been a bit put out by something and have replaced their front page with this:
Angie Lee already knows my name - who feels like emailing them to ask why they haven't included
http://www.cyclehelmets.org (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/) or http://www.cycle-helmets.com (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/), both of which give the more balanced
information which BHIT's status as a registered charity obliges them to provide?
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:55:55 -0000, "Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com (change warm for hot)> wrote in
message <c1o3sc$jsn$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Was having a look at the websites they listed. The American counterpart seems to survive on $12,000
>of donated money a year, and with volunteers donating their time.
And a wodge from Bell, I'm told.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:05:59 +0000, "[Not Responding]"
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
<9i1v30por8861ir7e3bn7bql8tifppfgbu@4ax.com>:
>All the research is peer vetted and none based on opinion from an individual or group...."
Unlike Lee & Mann's leading article in J. Dis. Child, which was long on personal opinion and notably
short on facts.
Note: one of the links is to <url:http://www.bhsi.org> - this is the same BHIS addressed here:
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/BHSI> - note their quote:
"We are aware of the second study, but by the time it appeared the 85% figure was so deeply
ingrained in the injury prevention community that a change will not be helpful. I regard any similar
numbers published in those or other studies as approximations anyway. Over the years observation of
who gets head-injured and who does not seems to support the 85% number. So we have left it up that
way. We do have references to the later study for those who need more"
So, not so much peer-reviewed as "don't confuse them with the facts."
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:05:59 +0000, "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in
> message <9i1v30por8861ir7e3bn7bql8tifppfgbu@4ax.com>:
>
> >Bhit seem to have been a bit put out by something and have replaced their front page with this:
>
> Angie Lee already knows my name - who feels like emailing them to ask why they haven't included
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/) or http://www.cycle-helmets.com (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/), both of which give the more balanced
> information which BHIT's status as a registered charity obliges them to provide?
I don't think they are *obliged* to give balanced information just because they are a charity,
otherwise Roadpeace should also be putting the case for lower penalties for drivers who kill. It
would be illogical.
Nevertheless I certainly think very strong representations need to be made about the sources of
their funding and how it is being used.
John B
[Not Responding] wrote: ...
> All the research is peer vetted and none based on opinion from an individual or group...."
It's nice to see they admit that all the research is perverted.
Pip
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:00:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote (more or less):
>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:05:59 +0000, "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in
>message <9i1v30por8861ir7e3bn7bql8tifppfgbu@4ax.com>:
>
>>All the research is peer vetted and none based on opinion from an individual or group...."
>
>Unlike Lee & Mann's leading article in J. Dis. Child, which was long on personal opinion and
>notably short on facts.
>
>Note: one of the links is to <url:http://www.bhsi.org> - this is the same BHIS addressed here:
> <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/BHSI> - note their quote:
>
>"We are aware of the second study, but by the time it appeared the 85% figure was so deeply
>ingrained in the injury prevention community that a change will not be helpful. I regard any
>similar numbers published in those or other studies as approximations anyway. Over the years
>observation of who gets head-injured and who does not seems to support the 85% number. So we have
>left it up that way. We do have references to the later study for those who need more"
>
>So, not so much peer-reviewed as "don't confuse them with the facts."
I'd like to cite their reply to you in my BHIT-bill letter to my local MP (Alistair Darling) could
you email me the details of the date of the letter, etc, etc? Or , even better, send me a
photocopy of it?
(Please contact me via email for rl address, if that's okay)
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr (http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr/) Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 (http://html.dnsalias.net:1122/)
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:39:05 +0000, Gawnsoft
<xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net> wrote in message
<3fk140hhj9d4l25kstoetfjjrlvhfap2af@4ax.com>:
>I'd like to cite their reply to you in my BHIT-bill letter to my local MP (Alistair Darling) could
>you email me the details of the date of the letter, etc, etc? Or , even better, send me a
>photocopy of it?
The reply from BHSI was by email.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:19:39 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote (more or less):
>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:39:05 +0000, Gawnsoft <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net>
>wrote in message <3fk140hhj9d4l25kstoetfjjrlvhfap2af@4ax.com>:
>
>>I'd like to cite their reply to you in my BHIT-bill letter to my local MP (Alistair Darling) could
>>you email me the details of the date of the letter, etc, etc? Or , even better, send me a
>>photocopy of it?
>
>The reply from BHSI was by email.
Forward a copy of it to me then, please, with a bit of text saying here is what I received... Ta.
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr (http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr/) Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 (http://html.dnsalias.net:1122/)
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
