BHIT and Early Day Motions

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Nov 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    A point from Roger Geffen at the CTC: the EDM sponsored by Be-Hit will fall, along with all the
    other EDMs, when Parliament is prorogued in Thursday - which is why the CTC have limited their
    response to writing to the Legion of the Duped.

    There is a Road Safety Bill listed for the next session, and it is possible that Be-Hit regard this
    EDM as an opening salvo in an attempt to get a helmet clause added to that Bill - in which case some
    strong lobbying may well be required. Be-Hit have repeatedly shown that they won't let the truth get
    in the way of their campaign.

    Examples of BHIT distortions:

    * 28,000 serious child head injuries annually due to cycling. The real figure is 1,200 for all
    recorded child cyclist head injuries, the majority of which are superficial and have no lasting
    consequences.

    * 85% of head injuries would be saved by helmets. The authors of that report are have published
    revisions down to about 65%, and even that figure has been pretty comprehensively demolished by
    peer review. BHIT know the figure has been publicly amended by its original authors, so to
    continue to use the 85% figure is deliberate deceit.

    * The drop in cycling in Victoria, Western Australia, post-law was due solely to a change in the
    legal age for driving. Quite how this would have caused the 20%+ drop in _adult_ cycling is not
    explained, nor is there any attempt to prove how a measured reduction of up to a third of all
    cyclists could be accounted for solely by riders aged seventeen, especially since we are informed
    by our tame Aussie that the effect of the law was actually to make it more difficult for young
    people to obtain a licence.

    * Compulsory helmet use by children would save the NHS £2bn per year. Combining ONS and census
    data the NHS spends £1.5bn (25% less) per year on treating all children aged 4-16 for all
    injuries and illness.

    * BHIT conflate head injuries with helmet laws. 90% of child cycle accidents happen in off-road
    play, whereas a law could only affect on-road use. BHIT acknowledge this but do not scale down
    their claims as a result. Neither do they scale down their claims to account for the fact that a
    high proportion of children, especially the youngest children, already wear helmets voluntarily.

    Now ask yourself this: BHIT are a Reading-based organsiation, and the MP for Reading East,
    Jane Griffiths, is chair of the all-party cycling group. Why did BHIT not target Jane as
    sponsor for this EDM?

    BHIT's stated aim is to make everybody wear a helmet. They have no interest in overall road safety.
    When everyone wears a helmet, they say their job will be done. Regardless of the fact that this will
    not prevent a single crash, and if you believe the figures from New Zealand, Australia and Canada,
    it won't save a single head injury either. Or it will cause as many as it saves, which amounts to
    the same thing. No matter. BHIT are dishonest, and that's an end of it.

    --
    Guy http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk "Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter
    educatus et nimis propinquus ades"
     
    Tags:


  2. Sandy Morton

    Sandy Morton Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    > BHIT's stated aim is to make everybody wear a helmet. They have no interest in overall road
    > safety. When everyone wears a helmet, they say their job will be done.

    I do have helmets for all my hiring cycles and a few more to cater for different sizes of
    heads/people. If the customer wishes a helmet for themselves or their child I will happily supply a
    helmet - at a very nominal cost.

    However, if the customer asks me if I would advise a helmet for their child I will always say no and
    explain why. Almost all children without a helmet will take reasonable care when on a bike (why
    should they want to hurt themselves) but the ones who have helmets think that they cannot be hurt
    because they have one.

    Organised school parties have to have helmets because that is school policy - if the policy makers
    saw the number of kids who came back with helmets hanging over the handlebars would they be as keen?

    Commonsense must rule - some people do need/want to wear helmets and that must be their choice -
    others, probably the majority, must have freedom of choice.

    I have been hiring bikes for about 40 years - I don't know how many bikes I have hired but 500,000
    could be a ball park figure. In that time I have had one fatality - a motorcyclist hit the kid on
    the bike in the middle of her back - she had no chance and a helmet would not have made one iota of
    difference. I have had a few cuts and grazes but I have not once had a comment about how much better
    it would have been if the cyclist had been wearing a helmet.

    --
    A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village http://www.sandymillport.fsnet.co.uk
     
  3. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > A point from Roger Geffen at the CTC: the EDM sponsored by Be-Hit will
    fall,
    > along with all the other EDMs, when Parliament is prorogued in Thursday - which is why the CTC
    > have limited their response to writing to the Legion of the Duped.

    A destruction of BHIT b/s snipped

    AIUI EDMs are not 'debated' or 'moved' and have zero chance of being 'passed'. They are simply a way
    of our (seemingly brainless) MP's expressing an opinion on a subject.

    Looking at the lists of who signs what it is clear that some MP's will sign anything. Perhaps they
    think they are autographs.

    T
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...