BHIT Bill

[email hidden] (Patrick Herring) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

All you need is "The helmet must be worn according to its designed intention". If someone doesn't
like it, they pay the lawyer.

True, however if that were their intention I would have thought that that wording, or similar, could
have been simply included in the bill. The fact that it isn't makes me think they're going to create
some silly definition of "correctly worn".

Chers,

Graeme

Peter Clinch said:

Graeme said:

So, anyone up for a guess at how it would be worded? Here's my bash - "The helmet should be worn
with any straps correctly aligned and fastened" Lots of room for interpretation there and I've no
clue how to word it to stop the "back of the head" style.

Howzabout "according to the manufacturer's published guidelines", since I think safety equipment
has to be sold with a bit of blurb these days. And if not you've already got an excellent
precedent of Bloody Stupid legislation on helmets to make some more, c/o the BHIT bill!

That is not permitted as it then allows teh manufacturer to dictate law (which only parliament can
do - hence the bike lights legislation referring to a specific version of BS6102 (IIRC))

It is a horrible bill. Write to your MP and explain why.

..d

David Martin said:

It is a horrible bill. Write to your MP and explain why.

Sent off the letter (and one to David Jamieson too) earlier this week. So here's another request for
anyone who hasn't but does care to follow suit.

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~pjclinchOpen ↗

On 22/1/04 10:04 am, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Clinch said:

David Martin said:

It is a horrible bill. Write to your MP and explain why.

Sent off the letter (and one to David Jamieson too) earlier this week. So here's another request
for anyone who hasn't but does care to follow suit.

I've emailed Ernie Ross, and have an improved paper version to post (sat in my briefcase waiting for
a stamp, or I'll drop by at some point).

I'm working on one for David Jamieson.

..d

Graeme said:

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote in news:400EA765.7030408 @dundee.ac.uk:

Quoted message said:

Howzabout "according to the manufacturer's published guidelines", since I think safety equipment
has to be sold with a bit of blurb these days.

I'd thought of that one, but they can be a bit vague too. I wish I could remember where it was I
read the guidelines for one helmet. The wording was along the lines of "If you hit your head whilst
wearing this helmet and are injured, tough luck." Fair enough sentiments I thought, but it showed
to me that even the helmet manufacturers don't share the view evangelical view of BHIT (I know it
was probably just a "don't sue us" legal get-out, but I felt it was refreshingly honest).

Cheers,

Graeme

The last helmet I saw had "not for use with motor vehicles" written on it! Didn't buy it.

The best bit of over-zealous H&S labelling is on a trailer I have. It says "not for use in traffic"
and "take corners at 5mph or less". Well that's handy for the school run, then. And, after boasting
about its rigid roll-bar construction says "do not use without a helmet". Must be safe, then.

David Martin said:

I've emailed Ernie Ross, and have an improved paper version to post (sat in my briefcase waiting
for a stamp, or I'll drop by at some point).

I'd be interested to hear what comes of that. I sent him a letter on the back of the brouhaha about
X-ray helmet posters from DfT last year and he sent me a load of propoganda back from Those Who Must
Not Be Named as they'd got him hook, line and sinker. I did send a followup but there was no
evidence it had changed his mind at all.

My letter this time about had most of the emphasis on the proven track record of helmet compulsion
reducing nothing except cycling levels, since that's a very tangible real world thing that gives
actual precedents to work from. Could've gone on and on but prefer to keep these things to a page,
otherwise it's too easy not to read them properly :-(

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~pjclinchOpen ↗

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. Speaking as both a cyclist and the father of two young
cyclists I believe this to be a very bad bill and would be grateful for your opposition to it.

In essence the bill proposes that the riding of bicycles without a safety helmet is so dangerous
that it must be prohibited by criminal law. The basis for this appears to be assertions made by a
single-issue pressure group called the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (or BHIT, rather an
unfortunate name for an ostensibly safety pressure group!).

The BHIT data is of extremely low credibility. It greatly exaggerates the danger of cycling while
simultaneously overstating the protection offered by helmets (a most dangerous combination). For
example, they have claimed that 89% of all head injuries can be prevented by helmets, a result never
achieved in any real-world test and based on a single study now disowned by it original authors.
BHIT also claim a number of deaths from cycle-related head injuries to children that cannot even
begin to be reconciled with published statistics. They further claim a saving to NHS funds from
helmet wearing that exceeds total NHS expenditure on the under 16 age group the legislation is aimed
at. Finally, the bill's sponsors neglect to note that 90% of child head injuries result from off-
road play on private land and will not be affected by the proposed legislation.

The reality is that cycling is a safe and healthy activity which needs encouragement rather than the
reverse. The BMA recognise this and has always opposed compulsory helmet wearing on the grounds that
the health benefits of cycling considerably outweigh the small risks. They note that regular
cyclists live an average of 10 years longer than non-cyclists even allowing for the small risk of
death in a cycle accident.There is strong evidence that the country is threatened by an epidemic of
obesity amongst children; in such circumstances, discouraging them from using an enjoyable and
healthy means of transport borders on the criminal. That is indeed what is being proposed: the only
reliable outcome of helmet compulsion, demonstrated everywhere it has been tried, is to cause a
reduction in the amount of cycling taking place (the opposite of published government targets).
Furthermore, in no case has such compulsion ever led to a measurable reduction in head injury rates,
in some case rates have risen.

There are other problems with the bill. For example, it makes the owner of bicycle responsible for
the actions of people over whom they may have no control. Technically if my bike is stolen by a 15
year old who rides it unhelmeted then I might be fined! These deficiencies are minor compared to the
overall principle: we should not restrict personal freedoms to address a very small problem
especially in a way that may have profound negative consequences for public health.

Governments sometimes have to legislate to limit personal freedom but it is generally recognised
that they should do so only when that freedom is sufficiently dangerous to the needs of society as a
whole. That test cannot possibly be passed in the case of cycle helmets. What next? Compusory
helmets for pedestrians? After all, walking is more dangerous than cycling per mile travelled and a
greater proportion of pedestrians than cyclists suffer head injuries!

The bill is rather mischievously titled 'A Bill to make provision for the wearing of protective
headgear by children while riding cycles'. We already have such provision. Helmets are readily
available and it is not an offence to wear one. Please let us leave it that way.

yours sincerely

Peter Clinch said:

David Martin said:

I've emailed Ernie Ross, and have an improved paper version to post (sat in my briefcase waiting
for a stamp, or I'll drop by at some point).

I'd be interested to hear what comes of that. I sent him a letter on the back of the brouhaha
about X-ray helmet posters from DfT last year and he sent me a load of propoganda back from Those
Who Must Not Be Named as they'd got him hook, line and sinker. I did send a followup but there was
no evidence it had changed his mind at all.

I think they have a very effective propaganda machine that makes it very easy to have their material
to hand for replying.

Mine started off with the 'is cycling really so dangerous that it should be banned? approach.
Hopefully a concerted bit of letter writing to Jamieson should help if he lays down the government
line. I'll follow up nearer the time with a more succinct letter outlining how it would be really
counterproductive for the government's targets on increasing exercise amongst youngsters, reducing
crime and increasing cycling. As well as the point that whilst helmets may be a good idea, making
them compulsory isn't.

Quoted message said:

My letter this time about had most of the emphasis on the proven track record of helmet compulsion
reducing nothing except cycling levels, since that's a very tangible real world thing that gives
actual precedents to work from. Could've gone on and on but prefer to keep these things to a page,
otherwise it's too easy not to read them properly :-(

I should probably have kept mine short, but it was reasonably readable and fact dense. I tried to
present the facts in a way that could be easily picked up and used in arguement/discussion.

..d

Reply to David Martin

Quoted message said:

It is a horrible bill. Write to your MP and explain why.

I wrote to my MP (Tom Levitt) a little while ago, and received his reply this morning.

A brief ungrammatical summary: Ta for letter & for drawing attention to Bill... read about it &
spoken to Jane Griffiths MP... not realised it's a controversial issue... evidence is mixed, and
particularly impressed by the effect of cycling reduction on children's health... on balance the
case for compulsion is unproven; but I'm a PPS, and as such wouldn't generally vote on a private
member's measure anyway. HTH.

He's a nice guy and a good constituency MP by all accounts. It's the <<not realised it's a
controversial issue>> thing which makes me particularly glad I wrote; there's no reason why any MP
should think it's a controversial issue, unless they're told. BHIT aren't going to tell them <g>, so
we should.

--
Mark, UK. If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to
hang him. - Richelieu

Quoted message said:

on balance the case for compulsion is unproven; but I'm a PPS, and as such wouldn't generally vote
on a private member's measure anyway.

What's a PPS?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:13:55 -0000, Mark Thompson

(change warm for hot) said:

Quoted message said:

on balance the case for compulsion is unproven; but I'm a PPS, and as such wouldn't generally
vote on a private member's measure anyway.

What's a PPS?

Parliamentary Private Secretary. He sort of works for a minister though he's an MP, a first foot on
the ladder of government.

Colin
--

Graeme said:

The vast majority of us know how a helmet should be worn because it just looks right, but do legal
definitions not have to be rather more precise than that?

I saw one bloke at Reading Station recently whose plastic hat was very obviously on back to front,
leaving his forehead largely exposed. At first I thought it was just a rerally strange lid, it was
so odd it took me a while to work out what was going on.

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

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.

1) "Approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16 years receive a serious head injury as a
result of a cycling accident". In fact 28,000 is the figure for all recorded child head injuries,
not just those from cycling, and is higher than the total number of cyclists injured in the UK
(all severities, all injury types).

Does anyone have a reference for 28,000 as the figure for all recorded child head injuries, or for
1200 (as quoted on Guy's site) as the actual number of child head injuries from cycling?

2) "85% of head injuries could be avoided by wearing a helmet". This figure came from a 1989 study
and was later reduced by the study's authors. The reduced figure was still found by peer review
to be excessive.

I've got a reference for the original study ("A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle
helmets" - Thompson, R, Rivara, FP, Thompson, DC, NEJM 1989; 320:1367-7). Does anyone have a
reference for the later reduction in the figure, or for demolition of either the original or reduced
figure by peer review?

3) "Cycle helmets could save the NHS £2billion annually in the cost of treating child accident
injuries." This seems unlikely given that the NHS spends a total of £1.5 billion annually on
treating children aged 5-15 for all illnesses and injuries.

Does anyone have a reference for the NHS figure of £1.5 billion?

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

On 23/1/04 8:59 pm, in article [email hidden], "Danny

Colyer said:

2) "85% of head injuries could be avoided by wearing a helmet". This figure came from a 1989 study
and was later reduced by the study's authors. The reduced figure was still found by peer review
to be excessive.

I've got a reference for the original study ("A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle
helmets" - Thompson, R, Rivara, FP, Thompson, DC, NEJM 1989; 320:1367-7). Does anyone have a
reference for the later reduction in the figure, or for demolition of either the original or
reduced figure by peer review?

Dorothy Robinson was one of the leading lights in demolishing this study.

I'll see if I can dig up the reference (it was in Acident Analysis and Prevention).

..d

Martin Family said:

I'll see if I can dig up the reference (it was in Acident Analysis and Prevention).

The amended version was published by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson in AAP in 1996, IIRC.

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

Danny Colyer 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.

Quoted message said:

3) "Cycle helmets could save the NHS £2billion annually in the cost of treating child accident
injuries." This seems unlikely given that the NHS spends a total of £1.5 billion annually on
treating children aged 5-15 for all illnesses and injuries.

Does anyone have a reference for the NHS figure of £1.5 billion?

Its an extrapolation of government statistics. Here is a repeat of my posting of 19th July, which
is, I think, the origin of the 1.5Bn figure. It was arrived at as an attempt to show the 2Bn as
"Complete Bollocks" (as Guy put it). Please read in full, because there are some large caveats, and
I'm no statistician:

Re: Letter in Reading Chronicle.

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

[ about some claims made by the BHIT organisation ]

Quoted message said:

It is also the case that some of the "head injuries" logged are

superficial.

Quoted message said:

And even a scalp wound requiring treatment at A&E is unlikely to cost £100,000. In fact the £2bn
figure has the whiff of Complete Bollocks

about

Quoted message said:

it.

The Treasury hm-hm-Open ↗
treasury.gov.uk/Spending_Review/spend_sr02/report/spend_sr02_repchap07.cfm table 7.2, puts total NHS
expenditure in 2002/3 as 68Bn. So, the BHIT recons that compulsory child helmets would save
2Bn/year, or best part of 3% of NHS spending. Guy's assessment would seem sound.

The National Office of Government Statistics :
statistics.gov.ukssdataset.aspOpen ↗ suggests that £184 was spent
per child on healthcare (per year I think) between ages 5 and 15. With 11.8M children (elsewhere in
thread), some of whom are 0-4 years old, that gives approximately 11/16*11.8M = 8.1M between 5 and
15. Multiply the 8.1M children by the £184 and it comes to £1.5Bn spent on healthcare for children
between 5 and 15 years old. Taking the stats office as accurate, the BHIT claim is that the saving
in expenditure on child head injuries would be greater than the total spent on healthcare for
children who would benefit (aged 5-15).

However, before people waltz off with the above statistical data, there is one bit which I cannot
reconcile. The first reference talks of 68Bn expenditure and the second of 28Bn. This means there is
obviously a missing bit of data somewhere. -

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

Danny Colyer said:

1) "Approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16 years receive a serious head injury as a
result of a cycling accident". In fact 28,000 is the figure for all recorded child head
injuries, not just those from cycling, and is higher than the total number of cyclists injured
in the UK (all severities, all injury types).

I don't know where BeHIT got the 28,000 figure, I certainly can't find a reference for it (it's
probably another number they made up). I have been told it's the figure for all child head injuries,
by a usually reliable source, but I can't give a citation.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have a reference for 28,000 as the figure for all recorded child head injuries, or for
1200 (as quoted on Guy's site) as the actual number of child head injuries from cycling?

The 1,200 came to me from the CTC. The largest figure I've seen is 3,500. Recorded child cyclist
injuries in 2002: 22 killed, 594 ksi (includes killed), 4,809 injured (includes ksi). For adult
cyclists it's 107, 1,801, 11,712. That's from the DfT so does not include injuries in offroad play.

There was a question in Parliament recently the answer to which yielded similar numbers.

I cannot find any figures anywhere which would make the figure of 28,000 child cyclist head injuries
even vaguely credible. Even including the most trivial injuries, it appears to be at least an order
of magnitude out.

Quoted message said:

2) "85% of head injuries could be avoided by wearing a helmet". This figure came from a 1989 study
and was later reduced by the study's authors. The reduced figure was still found by peer review
to be excessive.

Quoted message said:

I've got a reference for the original study ("A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle
helmets" - Thompson, R, Rivara, FP, Thompson, DC, NEJM 1989; 320:1367-7). Does anyone have a
reference for the later reduction in the figure, or for demolition of either the original or
reduced figure by peer review?

<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1003.html> should help

Quoted message said:

3) "Cycle helmets could save the NHS £2billion annually in the cost of treating child accident
injuries." This seems unlikely given that the NHS spends a total of £1.5 billion annually on
treating children aged 5-15 for all illnesses and injuries.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have a reference for the NHS figure of £1.5 billion?

Take the ONS census data and combine with the figures for NHS spending from the Audit Office. At
least two of us did the sums at the time and came up with the same answer.

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

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.

Thanks Martin Family, Guy and NC, your responses were a great help.

I've now got a letter that I'm moderately happy with (including references lifted from my letters to
the DfT last year about their helmet promotion campaign): speedy5.freeserve.co.ukzOpen ↗
mp.html

I haven't yet sent it, so I'm still open to suggestions for improvement. Except suggestions to make
it shorter without suggesting how to do so - I struggled to keep to 2 pages before references.

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

Danny Colyer said:

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.

Thanks Martin Family, Guy and NC, your responses were a great help.

I've now got a letter that I'm moderately happy with (including references lifted from my letters
to the DfT last year about their helmet promotion campaign): speedy5.freeserve.co.ukzOpen ↗
mp.html

I haven't yet sent it, so I'm still open to suggestions for improvement. Except suggestions to
make it shorter without suggesting how to do so - I struggled to keep to 2 pages before
references.

Ideas having read the draft:

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.

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.

Suggestions for re-write:

I'd start with your current first paragraph.

Then a summary paragraph - your second starts well, then heads off into injury details (which it
shouldn't). The second needs to also summarise the rider results in countries where compulsion has
been tried, and the minimal number of injuries prevented contrasted with negative effects on obesity
and cycling targets. Then introduce the BMA, who are against compulsion because of the net negative
effects on health.

A paragraph to hammer home the BMA stuff - independent, only interested in health.

Then the injury issues which you obviously understand quite well (the heavily references stuff).

Add material about other countries experiences.

Then demolish BHIT's credibility.

HTH.

- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

Danny Colyer said:

speedy5.freeserve.co.ukz mp.htmlOpen ↗

Hi Danny,

One key point which may be worth making right at the start is that this bill is contentious -
contentious private members' bills are rarely passed. I am becoming acutely aware that many MPs (and
others) simply do not know of the existence of a well-founded contrary position.

Your arguments are solid. I might be inclined to lead with the failure of similar laws in other
countries, as that immediately raises the question "why?" which you then go on to answer very well.

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 ;-)

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