UK and Europe · Public discussion

BHIT Bill

Started by Just Zis Guy · · Last activity · 81 posts · 3,560 views

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
16 January 2004
Last activity
11 February 2004
Original author
Just Zis Guy
Posts
81
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,560
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 61–80 of 81
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Guy writes:

    Above all I have been finding that bald statements like "helmets don't work" are met with disbelief
    and defensiveness - you are suggesting that they are wrong (assuming they believe the magic hat
    fallacy, which many people do). Taking them on the journey of discovery seems to work better. You
    may infer form this that I have had rather a lot of conversations in rather a short period of time
    with the "helmet-saved-my-life" brigade ;-)

    Hello from the antipodes (NZ). The MHL came into effect ten years ago (January 1, 1994) I hope you UK guys can ward of the deluded helmet zealots. I have been staunchly anti helmet Law since the start and it has been interesting (and exasperating) observing the unfolding of this epidemic of delusion and self deception.

    It's interesting to try and fathom the motivations, cognitive biases and errors that infect the thinking of those who have succumbed to the delusion of the magic hats.

    Other posters have alluded to the "blame the victim" aspect of the law (Mike Sales?) and this leads to a theory in Social Psychology called "Belief in a Just World: A fundamental Delusion" (actually that is the title of the book written by the its originator - Melvin Lerner).

    What this theory has to do with the helmet law is that is helps explain the erroneous thinking - the delusionary thinking that inhabits the (rabid?) minds of those dogmatic helmet law evangelists. The "Just Word" theory also ties in with psychological defence mechanisms - denial and a variant of the Fundamental Attribution Error - defensive denial (defensive attribution).

    The Belief in a Just World presents the theory that people must mantain the belief that they live in a just world (you'd never have guessed - right?) - a world where people get what they deserve, either immediately or in the long run. This theory contends that this belief is a fundamental - if not essential - delusion, which enables people to function despite life's inevitable tragedies.

    Defensive Attribution/Denial is is described as the tendency to blame victims for their misfortune by which they maintain their belief in a just world and avoid the disturbing reality that the calamity/misfortune /tragic event could happen to them too.

    By investing in a grossly exaggerated belief in the cycle helmet's protective ability, people who have been primed with exaggerated head injury risk likelyhoods (see "availability bias" and "availability heuristic"😉 are able to allay the disturbing fear that an accidental misfortune (ie serious brain trauma) could happen to them, and thus the magic hat delusion (talisman) is the antidote to anxiety, a dummy which gives comfort to distressed infant, it enables them to restore belief in a just world.

    Being forced, under threat of law, to wear a cycle helmet amounts to being forced to pay homage to other peoples comforting delusions...

    Roger

  2. On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:52:06 GMT, RogerDodger
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    [snip stuff]

    Interesting argument. I will investigate further, thanks.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  3. NC suggested:

    Quoted message said:

    1) quote the British Medical Association more prominantly. The BMA is a good source - doctors
    don't have a cycling axe to grind, they are just interested in the health of people.

    Excellent idea.

    Quoted message said:

    2) the first few paragraphs on head injuries are in the wrong place. Its too easy to get very
    bored with the letter before the other issues are raised. I think its better to cover that more
    quickly, possibly later in the letter.

    I remember vaguely thinking about putting the head injury stuff further down the letter, then I
    forgot all about it. I've now done that, though I'm not too happy about covering it more quickly.

    Quoted message said:

    HTH.

    It certainly did, thank you (though I haven't followed all of your advice). Guy's comments also
    helped, thanks Guy. I now have a letter that I'm much happier with: speedy5.freeserve.co.ukz
    mp2.html

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdanny
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  4. Hi Danny,

    One comment:

    "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, numbers of cyclist head
    injuries have been reduced. Unfortunately, this reduction is more than accounted for by the
    corresponding reduction in numbers of cyclists."

    I would change that round a bit, maybe more like:

    "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, head injury rates have not
    reduced - indeed in some cases they have risen steeply. The reduction in numbers cycling has in each
    case outweighed the reduction in numbers of head injuries."

    Otherwise it looks like you are leading on helmets reducing head injuries, which essentially they
    don't at the population level.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  5. Guy Chapman said:

    I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
    <http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

    My e-mail to my MP:

    From: Gareth Rees <[email hidden]> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:36:22 +0000 To:
    [email hidden] Subject: Bicycle Helmets Bill

    I would be grateful if you could let me know how you are planning to vote on Eric Martlew's
    private member's bill that proposes to make it illegal for children to ride bicycles without
    wearing helmets.

    Her reply:

    From: Anne Campbell <[email hidden]> To: Gareth Rees <[email hidden]> Subject:
    Re: Bicycle Helmets Bill Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:54:04 -0000

    I am going to speak to Eric to try and get him to withdraw the Bill. If he won't my plan is to be
    in Parliament on the Friday that it is being debated in order to try and defeat it. The first date
    is April 23rd I believe.

    --
    Gareth Rees

  6. Just zis Guy said:

    "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, numbers of cyclist head
    injuries have been reduced. Unfortunately, this reduction is more than accounted for by the
    corresponding reduction in numbers of cyclists."

    I would change that round a bit, maybe more like:

    "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, head injury rates have not
    reduced - indeed in some cases they have risen steeply. The reduction in numbers cycling has in
    each case outweighed the reduction in numbers of head injuries."

    Otherwise it looks like you are leading on helmets reducing head injuries, which essentially they
    don't at the population level.

    Hmm. I'd feel the need for a reference to a report showing where they have risen steeply, which I
    haven't found. Maybe: "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, absolute
    numbers of cyclist head injuries have sometimes been reduced. Unfortunately, any reduction is more
    than accounted for by the corresponding reduction in numbers of cyclists."

    And add these 2 references: pcug.org.auagainst.htm

    pcug.org.aunswstats.htm

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdanny
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  7. Danny Colyer said:
    Just zis Guy said:

    "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, numbers of cyclist head
    injuries have been reduced. Unfortunately, this reduction is more than accounted for by the
    corresponding reduction in numbers of cyclists."

    I would change that round a bit, maybe more like:

    "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced, head injury rates have not
    reduced - indeed in some cases they have risen steeply. The reduction in numbers cycling has in
    each case outweighed the reduction in numbers of head injuries."

    Otherwise it looks like you are leading on helmets reducing head injuries, which essentially they
    don't at the population level.

    Hmm. I'd feel the need for a reference to a report showing where they have risen steeply, which I
    haven't found. Maybe: "In countries where mandatory helmet legislation has been introduced,
    absolute numbers of cyclist head injuries have sometimes been reduced. Unfortunately, any reduction
    is more than accounted for by the corresponding reduction in numbers of cyclists."

    And add these 2 references: pcug.org.auagainst.htm
    pcug.org.aunswstats.htm

    I'm not suggesting you need to claim a steep rise - that happened only in Alberta, elsewhere for the
    most part injuries have simply not fallen. It's your letter, in the end, I just feel that starting
    the sentence with helmets reucing injuries and only then qualifying it by mentioning the reductions
    in cycling gives a pro-helmet message where actually you intend the reverse. That's what I'm trying
    to get across in my usual clumsy way. Put it down to age ;-)

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  8. Just zis Guy said:

    I'm not suggesting you need to claim a steep rise - that happened only in Alberta, elsewhere for
    the most part injuries have simply not fallen. It's your letter, in the end, I just feel that
    starting the sentence with helmets reucing injuries and only then qualifying it by mentioning the
    reductions in cycling gives a pro-helmet message where actually you intend the reverse. That's
    what I'm trying to get across in my usual clumsy way.

    No problem, I appreciate the suggestions. I've found this a very difficult letter to get right.

    Quoted message said:

    Put it down to age ;-)

    Don't worry, you'll get used to the idea of being 40. Of course, by then you'll be 50 ;-)

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdanny
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  9. I have still not scanned the letter from Boris Johnson, but here's my
    reply:

    <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Boris_Johnson>

    Dear Mr Johnson,

    Thank you for your letter of 14 Jan regarding the private member's Bill compelling helmet use for
    children. I am pleased that you will not be supporting the Bill.

    I understand that your reasons for opposing the Bill are pragmatic. Presumably you are also swayed
    by the failure of such laws in other countries to deliver any measurable benefit, in my view the
    most compelling pragmatic reason for opposing this Bill. A similar law in Alberta has been followed
    by a rise in head injury rates, which is unexpected: normally the rate simply fails to fall,
    although cycling invariably declines sharply.

    I am aware of the improving statistics on child cyclist head injuries. While these might be another
    pragmatic grounds for not legislating (the head injury rate is already falling very much faster than
    the helmet wearing rate is increasing), it is also possible that child cyclists are simply being
    scared off the roads as has already happened with large numbers of both child and elderly
    pedestrians. Mayer Hillman describes this in his book One False Move. The numbers cannot warrant
    making it a crime for a toddler to ride a tricycle in the park bareheaded.

    I disagree with you, though, regarding BHIT. They promote neither cycling nor bike safety. They
    promote helmet use. They have said that once everyone wears a helmet, their work will be done - but
    half of all fatal cyclist injuries are not head injuries, and most of those cyclists who die of head
    injuries have other mortal injuries as well. BHIT have never provided evidence to support
    prioritising helmets above, say, roadcraft training. Logic dictates that it is wiser to prevent
    crashes: maintenance, skills training, conspicuity, respect for the rules of the road among both
    cyclists and drivers - these will prevent crashes. Once crashes happen, a helmet may or may not
    help. Mounting evidence suggests that while helmets may prevent many trivial injuries their effect
    on the primary mechanisms of traumatic and fatal brain injury is negligible (e.g. Curnow).

    I am not sure why you have chosen to present the example of seat belt legislation as a success
    story. Perhaps you are unaware that this law led to a 14% rise in pedestrian fatalities, 40% in
    cyclists and 27% in rear-seat passengers - as far as I am aware the largest such rises ever
    recorded. The reduction in driver fatalities fell well short of predictions, and closer analysis
    shows that most of this was at the classic "drink-drive" times so is now generally attributed to the
    coincidental introduction of evidential breath testing machines (after which many fewer drivers were
    found to be over the limit following crashes).

    Most of this was known at the time, not least from analysis of other countries with and without seat
    belt laws. The Isles report was particularly persuasive but it "disappeared" prior to the final
    debate on the seat belt law and is known primarily through a leaked copy published some years later.
    As a journalist I know this will strike a chord with you: inconvenient facts conflicting with a
    Government's pre-existing agenda were simply buried.

    In many ways the seat belt law is a perfect example of how safety laws can fail: the research
    underpinning it concentrated solely on injuries and did not even consider the possibility that more
    crashes might happen. It is a case strongly supporting the theory of "risk compensation," the
    mechanism whereby safety improvements are subconsciously consumed as performance benefits. Including
    by cyclists. Anecdotal evidence indicates that adolescent males, in particular, will try things when
    wearing a helmet that they would not consider without. If, as sceptics claim, the evidence for the
    benefits of helmets is inconclusive, that is a strong argument for being very careful indeed about
    the way helmets are promoted, as the TRL acknowledged in their report no. 286.

    We were born, it seems, less than six months apart. Presumably you discovered cycling, as I did, as
    a first taste of independent mobility. My children are starting to experience the same freedom, but
    against a much tougher background of roads choked with aggressive and often inattentive drivers. I
    am teaching them roadcraft skills. I hope the forthcoming Way to Go consultation will yield
    improvements for cyclists, and I'm sure you too will be watching that with great interest.

    Thank you again for your reply, and your assurance that you will not be supporting this Bill. While
    our reasons may overlap only partially, we clearly agree that it is a bad Bill.

    Yours sincerely,

    Guy Chapman Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  10. Peter Amey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    My effort:

    Dear Dr Andrew Murrison,

    I understand that Eric Martlew MP is to propose a private-members' bill concerning the compulsory
    wearing of cycle helmets by children...

    Snip & unlurk

    I sent something similar to my MP (Mike Weir). All I got was:

    "I thank you for bringing these matters to my attention. I have also had mailings from the other
    side of the case. I have not seen Mr Martlew's Bill nor had a chance to consider in detail
    whether I will support it or not but will certainly take on board the points that you make in
    making any decision"

    He seems about as interested in the issue as he is in punctuation.

    Time to follow up until he decides.

    PhilO

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

    Quoted message said:
    David Martin said:

    I have read the text. It is somewhat horrendous.

    Too right. For example, from my reading it will make the teachers at a school criminally liable if
    children take their plastic hats off as they ride round the corner. Imagine the effect that will
    have on schools' enthusiasm to promote cycling.

    Guy

    A curious Yank lawyer chiming in here. Have the Independent Bicycle Dealers (or whatever they call
    themselves) weighed in this? As I read the Bill, an LBS should be careful to sell all children's
    bikes only to parents and/or insist that all bikes be taken home in the back of a car (certainly not
    ridden away by the child!!), lest the LBS be found to be a person described in Section 1(2)(c).
    Similarly, no quick derailleur tweaks, no bells installed or any other service, unless a parent is
    there to accept "possession" of the bike when the LBS hands it back.

    I'm also curious about where the rule applies. I assume that small children (ie the stabilizers
    set) are allowed to ride on the sidewalk/pavement even if adults are not. Is that part of a
    "road"? Or is that a "park, garden or recreation ground to which the public have access without
    payment"? Otherwise, it seems that the Bill does not apply to those who are most likely to fall
    over and bang their heads, but does apply to those riding in motor traffic where the helmet is far
    less likely to make any difference. Finally, given that BHIT admits taht 90% of the relevant head
    injuries occur off-road, it does seem strange that the criminal liability of parents and others
    depends on whether the child is trespassing. Presumably a child that sneaks onto private land is
    so obviously a hardened criminal that his parents can no longer be expected to control what is (or
    is not) on his head!

    Peter Storey

  12. "Peter Storey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    A curious Yank lawyer chiming in here. Have the Independent Bicycle Dealers (or whatever they call
    themselves)

    ACT (Association of Cycle Traders)

    Quoted message said:

    weighed in this? As I read the Bill, an LBS should be careful to sell all children's bikes only to
    parents and/or insist that all bikes be taken home in the back of a car (certainly not ridden away
    by the child!!), lest the LBS be found to be a person described in Section 1(2)(c).

    This has not gone unnoticed. I raised this point to some people whose existence may or may not be a
    Deep Dark Secret but who will, I hope, prove influential.

    Quoted message said:

    Similarly, no quick derailleur tweaks, no bells installed or any other service, unless a parent is
    there to accept "possession" of the bike when the LBS hands it back.

    Indeed.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm also curious about where the rule applies. I assume that small children (ie the
    stabilizers set) are allowed to ride on the sidewalk/pavement even if adults are not. Is that
    part of a "road"?

    My understanding is that the pavement is considered part of the road, but that is an
    interesting point!

    Quoted message said:

    Finally, given that BHIT admits taht 90% of the relevant head injuries occur off-road, it does
    seem strange that the criminal liability of parents and others depends on whether the child is
    trespassing.

    Quite.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

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

    Quoted message said:

    My understanding is that the pavement is considered part of the road, but that is an
    interesting point!

    OK, the Bill references section 192 of the Road Traffic Act which says that road means means any
    highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road
    passes. Other parts of the Act describe roads in similar terms, but describe footways *separately.*
    This Bill really is a dog's breakfast, isn't it?

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  14. I said:

    I'm finally getting round to drafting a letter to my MP and I'm after some references, if anyone's
    got them to hand.

    The final version of the letter is now online. Thanks for the suggestions: <url:
    speedy5.freeserve.co.uk040127MP.html>

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdanny
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  15. I got a reply from my MP, basically saying thanks for the letter and that he is awaiting info from
    Eric Martlew. I'll post when I have a substantive response.

    ..d

  16. Danny Colyer said:

    The final version of the letter is now online.

    Looks good to me. Mind if I steal it?

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  17. Just zis Guy said:

    Looks good to me. Mind if I steal it?

    If you like (though I *know* there's at least one paragraph you'll want to change).

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdanny
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  18. Got a reply from my MP (Mark Oaten, Lib Dem) saying that he wouldn't be supporting the bill because.
    as a liberal [sic], he wouldn't want to encourage "nanny state" legislation. He also noted that his
    own children cycle without helmets.
    --

  19. Martin Family said:

    I got a reply from my MP, basically saying thanks for the letter and that he is awaiting info from
    Eric Martlew. I'll post when I have a substantive response.

    Same MP (Ernie Ross) and same letter landed on my doormat a couple of days ago. It's probably good
    he has had letters on this from two weirdo cycling activists rather than just one of us as it will
    hopefully have set the alarm bells ringing that something is genuinely up. Also encouraging to note
    that he wasn't in the EDM lists posted last week, despite previous evidence from letters of
    subversion by BHIT.

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

  20. Peter Clinch said:
    Martin Family said:

    I got a reply from my MP, basically saying thanks for the letter and that he is awaiting info
    from Eric Martlew. I'll post when I have a substantive response.

    Same MP (Ernie Ross) and same letter landed on my doormat a couple of days ago. It's probably good
    he has had letters on this from two weirdo cycling activists rather than just one of us as it will
    hopefully have set the alarm bells ringing that something is genuinely up. Also encouraging to
    note that he wasn't in the EDM lists posted last week, despite previous evidence from letters of
    subversion by BHIT.

    It'll be interesting to see what he comes up with. I'm also about to write to the council to find
    out what they are doing re. cycle training in schools.

    Of course being able to swing the qualifications (medical research scientist, parent of kids in the
    constituency etc.) probably helps.

    If he comes back parroting the BHIT line I'll ask him why he goes along with BHIT when all the
    bodies with a professional interest (BMA, RoSPA, CTC, National Cycling strategy committee ) are
    against compulsion.

    ..d

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.