A Not-Bad BBC Helmet Article

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3563671.stmOpen ↗

For those who are lazy but particularly anyone that gets
annoyed by this, here it is in full:

Cycling groups have hit out at attempts to make helmet
wearing compulsory
- claiming it could reduce cycle use and the health benefits
of the activity. They claim making it illegal for under
16s to cycle without a helmet is likely to exacerbate the
problem of obesity.

Eric Martlew MP hopes his Protective Headgear for Young
Cyclists Bill will receive government backing.

The British Medical Association says it is in favour of
cycle helmets but is against compulsion for health reasons.

Car dependency

The row over cycle helmets erupted after Labour MP Mr
Martlew promoted his bill at a press launch in Westminster
with the backing of Formula 1 ace David Coulthard.

The McLaren driver, a keen cyclist who has a company selling
cycle helmets, insisted he would not get on his bike without
wearing one.

Mr Martlew says he would like to see the use of helmets
become as common as wearing a hat for horse-riding.

But his plans have angered a number of cycling groups,
including CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, which
says making helmet use compulsory would discourage people
from taking to their bikes.

Roger Geffen, CTC's campaigns and policy manager, said:
"If passed, this Bill would almost certainly undermine the
efforts of government, local authorities, health
professionals and others to achieve a trebling of cycle
use by 2010.

"By reducing cycle use and exacerbating the trends towards
car-dependent sedentary lifestyles, this Bill would almost
certainly shorten thousands more lives than it could ever
hope to save."

Obesity

The organisation questions claims by supporters of the bill
that head injuries account for more than 50% of all child
cycling injuries.

Mr Geffen says CTC analysis of Department of Health data
suggests that of child cyclists admitted to hospital in
England in 2002/3, 37.6% had head injuries.

This compared with an equivalent figure of 43.7% for child
pedestrians. Of all children's admissions to hospital in
that year 34.2% had head injuries.

CTC argues that 15% of children aged between six and 15 were
obese in 2001, numbers which are expected to rise to one
fifth of boys and a third of girls by 2020.

'Unenforceable'

While obesity shortens life expectancy by about nine years,
cycling increases life expectancy by about two years, the
group claims.

Philip Darnton, acting chair of the National Cycling
Strategy Board, said the group was not anti-helmet wearing.

"We are opposed to mandatory helmet wearing, which apart
from connotations of the nanny state, is quite
unenforceable," he said.

"It would dramatically reduce the number of cyclists and be
the worst possible step to take when we are also concerned
about the desperate health problems arising from obesity."

Aerobic exercise

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the
BMA, said it was "very much in favour of encouraging people
to wear cycle helmets".

But the association was opposed to compulsory use at the
moment because of fears it could "undermine" the aerobic and
cardiac benefits" of cycling, she said.

"There is no doubt in our minds that cycle helmets make a
significant contribution to safety, particularly in low
speed impacts," she told BBC News Online.

But the BMA argues that compulsion could mean people
abandoning cycling and exercise in general because of the
cost of new equipment and other issues.

'Funky' designs

Dr Nathanson said advertising and education was needed to
"make people understand" why they should wear helmets.

She urged designers to make helmets "look fun and funky" to
encourage children to wear them, while including clear
instructions on how to wear them properly.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa)
says it advocates the use of cycle helmets, but would only
support compulsion if enough people were already wearing
them to make the law enforceable.

Spokesman Roger Vincent said: "We need to persuade people of
the benefits of wearing a helmet, with designs that are more
attractive for children to wear."

The bill is backed by Dr Andrew Curran, a leading child
neurologist at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, who
says wearing a cycle helmet reduces the risk of brain
injury by 80%.

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3563671.stmOpen ↗

BHIT take note, here is an article that you should model all
your briefings on. Instead of peddling misinformation and
outright lies you write what appears to be a fair and
balanced article, and then put an absolutely outrageous
piece of rubish at the end, eg:

"The bill is backed by Dr Andrew Curran, a leading
child neurologist at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool,
who says wearing a cycle helmet reduces the risk of
brain injury by 80%."

Note that the bollocks is clearly attributed to someone else
so you won't get in trouble for it. Its discreet placement
at the end of an otherwise balanced article ensures that
people will remember mainly that single 80% figure.

In "]news:[email hidden],
Mark Thompson <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3563671.stmOpen ↗

BHIT take note, here is an article that you should model
all your briefings on. Instead of peddling misinformation
and outright lies you write what appears to be a fair and
balanced article, and then put an absolutely outrageous
piece of rubish at the end, eg:

"The bill is backed by Dr Andrew Curran, a leading child
neurologist at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, who says
wearing a cycle helmet reduces the risk of brain injury
by 80%."

Note that the bollocks is clearly attributed to someone
else so you won't get in trouble for it. Its discreet
placement at the end of an otherwise balanced article
ensures that people will remember mainly that single
80% figure.

I'm trying to track down whether he'll actually know about
this from his research or whether he's just plucking figures
from the air. Let's see if we can find out.

A

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news.bbc.co.uk3563671.stmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

For those who are lazy but particularly anyone that gets
annoyed by this, here it is in full:

Um, I already posted bit the link and the full content
yesterday ;-)

--
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

Quoted message said:

Um, I already posted bit the link and the full content
yesterday ;-)

I know - I got to it about 20 seconds after posting the
story! D'oh.

"Mr Geffen says CTC analysis of Department of Health data
suggests that of child cyclists admitted to hospital in
England in 2002/3, 37.6% had head injuries.

This compared with an equivalent figure of 43.7% for child
pedestrians. Of
all children's admissions to hospital in that year 34.2% had
head injuries."

Well why not make all pedestrians wear helmets, no matter
how inconvenient in number terms it should save more lives.
The same logic applies to ped's as cyclists, but there isn't
a politician in the country who would advocate such a thing.

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

Quoted message said:

"Mr Geffen says CTC analysis of Department of Health data

suggests that of

Quoted message said:

child cyclists admitted to hospital in England in 2002/3,

37.6% had head

Quoted message said:

injuries.

This compared with an equivalent figure of 43.7% for

child pedestrians. Of

Quoted message said:

all children's admissions to hospital in that year 34.2%

had head injuries."

Quoted message said:

Well why not make all pedestrians wear helmets, no matter

how inconvenient

Quoted message said:

in number terms it should save more lives. The same logic

applies to ped's

Quoted message said:

as cyclists, but there isn't a politician in the country

who would advocate

Quoted message said:

such a thing.

Bearing in mind that cycle helmets are designed for LOW
SPEED (not 40mph into a brick wall) falls:- A cyclist
falling off will typically hit with shoulder first (giving
the neck muscles some time to decelerate the head), the head
will start at a height of about 4 foot (for an adult). A
pedestrian falling over will also land on shoulder first but
the head will start from a height of about 5'6" so have a
speed about 50% greater so helmets are more important for
peds. Horse riders, if the horse falls as well will also
land on shoulder with the head starting at about 10' so
their head will be moving at about 4 times the speed of the
ped's head - wear a helmet. If the horse stays upright and
the rider slides round the horse, then the hit with the head
first - wear a helmet. Now how can I apply this argument to
fishermen (anglers)?

IanB

IanB said:

[...] Horse riders, if the horse falls as well will also
land on shoulder with the head starting at about 10' so
their head will be moving at about 4 times the speed of
the ped's head - wear a helmet. If the horse stays
upright and the rider slides round the horse, then the
hit with the head first - wear a helmet.

Horse riders do wear helmets, and the rules are quite tough.
I think they're somewhat stronger than cycle helmets.
They're quite heavy, continous, and have a support webbing
inside like a hard hat. Riders also often wear back
protectors.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.