A&E and h*lmets



Jim wrote:
> "Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that
>> A&E don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't
>> wearing a helmet in an accident.
>>

>
> This is ambiguous, does she mean they don't need to treat cyclists
> without helmets, perhaps because they don't normally injure their
> heads OR
> they are not obliged to treat cyclists without helmets, perhaps
> because they are seen as irresponsible.?


As the latter case breaks the basic tennants of medical treatment, we can
ignore that one.

Drunken thugs with injuries from deliberate street fights which they set out
to get invoved with get treated. Boxers injured in the ring get treated
(even if the BMA would like boxing banned).




- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>> "Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that
>>> A&E don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't
>>> wearing a helmet in an accident.
>>>

>> This is ambiguous, does she mean they don't need to treat cyclists
>> without helmets, perhaps because they don't normally injure their
>> heads OR
>> they are not obliged to treat cyclists without helmets, perhaps
>> because they are seen as irresponsible.?

>
> As the latter case breaks the basic tennants of medical treatment, we can
> ignore that one.


Well, yes, but it's what she meant.
--
Robin Johnson
 
S
>> About the only concrete example at the moment
>> is the restriction in fertility treatment
>> for obese people.
>>
>> BugBear

>
>
> Unless they wear a hat...


a paper bag would be more like it.
TerryJ
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:29:14 +0100, Robin Johnson
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
>> don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
>> helmet in an accident.

>
> I suspect it was Fat Angie...
>
> Guy

I can imagine the Swamp Monster really would refuse to treat you. Does
she still work as a nurse?
 
PK writtificated

> all you can say is that in the accident you did not hit your head hard
> enough to do any serious damage.


All Robin needs to do is swap the word 'likely' for 'possible'.
 
On Jun 14, 4:48 pm, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> > "Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that
> >> A&E don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't
> >> wearing a helmet in an accident.

>
> > This is ambiguous, does she mean they don't need to treat cyclists
> > without helmets, perhaps because they don't normally injure their
> > heads OR
> > they are not obliged to treat cyclists without helmets, perhaps
> > because they are seen as irresponsible.?

>
> As the latter case breaks the basic tennants of medical treatment, we can
> ignore that one.


Ah yes but what about the Tennants Special?

James
 
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 4:48 pm, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:


> > As the latter case breaks the basic tennants of medical treatment,
> > we can ignore that one.

>
> Ah yes but what about the Tennants Special?
>

I'm guessing you mean Tennents Super, and Nigel meant tenets. Maybe
you're both Kestrel drinkers. :)
 
First a plea:

Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
judicial review against the IPCC ?


In article <[email protected]>,
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 13 Jun 2008 14:49:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote:
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

>
>I've just looked at "Tailgating by and collision with N99 JHC". Almost
>unbelievable!!!!
>
>I hope you reported this idiot to the police?


No. I have already tried reporting criminal motorists to the police,
but it does no good.

In December 2006 I was run into from behind by a taxi driver who
intended to intimidate me but misjudged. I was thrown from the bike
at 15mph but managed to land on my feet. There were three independent
witnesses.

The police took a statement from the driver and one of the witnesses
but decided that it was `not in the public interest' to prosecute. I
only found out about this by way of the taxi licensing office, where
the driver brought in an NFA letter to `show' that he hadn't done
anything wrong.

I complained to the police about all this. They pretended I had
agreed to `local resolution' (an unappealable `track' for dealing with
complaints) and fobbed me off. I complained to the IPCC who told the
police that as I `hadn't signed the relevant form' the police would
have to do it again, as if it were merely a paperwork problem.

In the second police investigation they accepted entirely the driver's
version of events, including the false allegation that I stopped in
front of the driver, despite the fact that the independent witness's
account `tends to agree with' mine (in the words of one of the
officers I dealt with). They even said that I admitted in my
statement that I had stopped, which I of course did not admit as it
wasn't true. The police concluded that it wasn't sensible to
prosecute because I was partially responsible for the crash by cycling
in middle of the road (ie, primary position at 15mph in the 20mph
limit zone approaching a set of rising bollards).

I have tried to get hold of the independent witness's statement and
the record of the taxi driver's interview under caution, but these are
mysteriously suddenly confidential even though they were collected for
use in prosecution in open court. The police have turned down my
Freedom of Information request. My appeal to the Information
Commissioner's Office is outstanding and will take some months to
complete.

I complained to the IPCC again. The IPCC refused to help me get
access to the statements I needed to prepare my complaint properly,
and refused to give me an extension of their 28-day time limit to
allow me to pursue the documents myself. They have also refused to
consider a proposed independent expert report from John Franklin
(which would be based on those witness statements and photos of the
road, etc.) because that would be `new evidence'. The IPCC even
suggest that I should obtain this report, present it to the police,
and then presumably once more complain to the police that they haven't
taken it properly on board and then launch a _third_ appeal to the
IPCC.

Then finally when the IPCC's decision arrived, it turned out that they
hadn't even read my appeal submission. They say `the complainant
states that the police have failed to do X' (a quote from the tiny box
on the complaint form) bug `the complainant doesn't say why' although
my appeal submission _does_ say why.

They uphold my complaint on essentially technical grounds and reject
all of my substantive arguments. The only thing the police have been
required to fix is to properly **** on the original constable who was
the only person who did anything useful about my case.

I have tried to get help from various campaigning bodies. The CTC and
CDF aren't interested. They are pursuing their IMO misguided and
useless strategy of looking for seriously injury crashes being treated
as `careless' or `inconsiderate' driving and hoping to press for those
to be upgraded. Liberty `aren't taking on this kind of work at the
moment'. The Cambridge Cycling Campaign don't have the necessary
resources.

I did speak to my MP. His office made friendly but useless noises, so
I went to a surgery. He was sympathetic and said he would write to
the police to try to get their training about proper cycling improved.
About a month later I got a copy of a letter sent by his office on his
behalf to the Chief Constable saying that my MP was very keen to see
"that the complaint against the cyclist was taken seriously".

If there is to be a judicial review action against the IPCC I have
about 5 weeks left to file proceedings. It will be difficult to do
this myself as a litigant in person without some kind of legal
backing.

See also
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/77/article16.html
for a strikingly similar incident.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
In article <UJB4k.125605$%[email protected]>,
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>The problem with wide angle lenses is that they get more picture at the
>expense of angular resolution. i.e. A wide angle will include more, but
>it will be far more difficult to make out detail such as number plates.
>In this instance it was easy to see the number plate, but I regularly
>find my camera will not catch the detail.


Yes.

>That collision did look deliberate to me.


Quite probably. See my other posting.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>First a plea:
>
>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>judicial review against the IPCC ?
>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 13 Jun 2008 14:49:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

>>
>>I've just looked at "Tailgating by and collision with N99 JHC". Almost
>>unbelievable!!!!
>>
>>I hope you reported this idiot to the police?

>
>No. I have already tried reporting criminal motorists to the police,
>but it does no good.
>


-- snip ---

Sorry for stirring up a hornet's nest! Good Luck!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
 
On Jun 13, 2:19 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:16:38 +0100, Brendan Halpin
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >I think you mean "methodologically substandard observational
> >case-control studies". :) The observational approach has its
> >weaknesses, but TRT made their own hash of it.

>
> Actually the TR&T study was more an example of policy-based evidence
> making than anything else.
>
> Guy


It may also be an excelent example of how peer review fails when a
paper is published in a very inappropriate journal. I have seldom
seen a decent cycling helmet research paper published in a medical
journal but I have seen a lot of junk. I suspect that the journal
editor does not know where to get good reviewers.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada
 
Ian Jackson wrote:

> First a plea:


> Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
> judicial review against the IPCC ?


An organisation with bottomless pockets, preferably?

[ ... ]

> In December 2006 I was run into from behind by a taxi driver who
> intended to intimidate me but misjudged. I was thrown from the bike
> at 15mph but managed to land on my feet. There were three independent
> witnesses.


> The police took a statement from the driver and one of the witnesses
> but decided that it was `not in the public interest' to prosecute. I
> only found out about this by way of the taxi licensing office, where
> the driver brought in an NFA letter to `show' that he hadn't done
> anything wrong.


> I complained to the police about all this. They pretended I had
> agreed to `local resolution' (an unappealable `track' for dealing with
> complaints) and fobbed me off. I complained to the IPCC who told the
> police that as I `hadn't signed the relevant form' the police would
> have to do it again, as if it were merely a paperwork problem.


> In the second police investigation they accepted entirely the driver's
> version of events, including the false allegation that I stopped in
> front of the driver, despite the fact that the independent witness's
> account `tends to agree with' mine (in the words of one of the
> officers I dealt with). They even said that I admitted in my
> statement that I had stopped, which I of course did not admit as it
> wasn't true. The police concluded that it wasn't sensible to
> prosecute because I was partially responsible for the crash by cycling
> in middle of the road (ie, primary position at 15mph in the 20mph
> limit zone approaching a set of rising bollards).


Look... I know you won't want to think of it in this way... but it
sounds as though they believe him and don't believe you.

It's probably as simple as that.

No-one here can know which of you is telling the truth. I certainly
don't. Any position taken up on the matter is knee-jerk, pure and simple.

> I have tried to get hold of the independent witness's statement and
> the record of the taxi driver's interview under caution, but these are
> mysteriously suddenly confidential


There's nothing "sudden" (in the sense of "unexpected") about that.
Police files are confidential. Full stop. If the police were
investigating an allegation against you, would you be happy if they
started sharing their files with Tom, **** & Harry?

> even though they were collected for
> use in prosecution in open court


....which is not looking likely to happen.

> The police have turned down my
> Freedom of Information request. My appeal to the Information
> Commissioner's Office is outstanding and will take some months to
> complete.


I don't think the FoI Act applies to police files - and it bloomin' well
shouldn't.

> I complained to the IPCC again. The IPCC refused to help me ...


It does sound as though they don't believe you.
 
On 16 Jun 2008 17:19:58 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>> About a month later I got a copy of a letter sent by his office on his
>>> behalf to the Chief Constable saying that my MP was very keen to see
>>> "that the complaint against the cyclist was taken seriously".

>>
>>Oh, now you're kidding me, surely?

>
>No. It's just prejudice: in the mind of the person who is told to
>draft this letter, the space between `complaint' and `cyclist'
>naturally attracts the word `against'.


I hope you have taken this letter up with your MP. In how many other
cases has your MP produced a completely wrong letter?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The police have turned down my
>Freedom of Information request. My appeal to the Information
>Commissioner's Office is outstanding and will take some months to
>complete.


They are as useless as the IPCC. I say this despite them having
reached a reasonably successful conclusion for me on a couple of
matters, taken up with their office in Scotland and the main one in
England.

In Scotland we have a far better Information Commissioner, but sadly
he only deals with Scottish public sector organisations.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>First a plea:
>
>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>judicial review against the IPCC ?


The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
doing something?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
 
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>First a plea:
>>
>>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>>judicial review against the IPCC ?

>
> The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
> in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
> doing something?
>


Unfortunately, I would think that most journalists would be more interested
if it had involved a "life changing" injury. You know "Paraplegic's case
dismissed by uncaring IPCC" and that sort of thing.

Colin
 
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:22:43 +0100, "Colin Reed"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:eek:[email protected]...
>> On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>First a plea:
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>>>judicial review against the IPCC ?

>>
>> The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
>> in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
>> doing something?
>>

>
>Unfortunately, I would think that most journalists would be more interested
>if it had involved a "life changing" injury. You know "Paraplegic's case
>dismissed by uncaring IPCC" and that sort of thing.


Probably. However, judging by some of the trivia reported in the
media, there may be a chance.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
 
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:22:43 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:eek:[email protected]...
>>> On 16 Jun 2008 14:07:35 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>First a plea:
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know of an organisation who would like to take on a
>>>>judicial review against the IPCC ?
>>>
>>> The only thing I can think of is to try to get a journalist interested
>>> in your case. Maybe the adverse publicity would nudge the IPCC into
>>> doing something?
>>>

>>
>>Unfortunately, I would think that most journalists would be more
>>interested
>>if it had involved a "life changing" injury. You know "Paraplegic's case
>>dismissed by uncaring IPCC" and that sort of thing.

>
> Probably. However, judging by some of the trivia reported in the
> media, there may be a chance.
>


I guess if Ian can be considered a celebrity in any way then there'd be a
better chance. Time to apply for the next series of Big Brother Ian :)

Colin
 

Similar threads