BHIT & DfT



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:17:17 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:20040202091728.11514.00001298@mb-
>m12.aol.com...
>
>> >So if anyone is anti-compulsion, please realise that when wearing a helmet you are helping move
>> >towards that result.
>
>> So that puts Guy on said opposite side then. As well as putting me - what
>a
>> load of tosh.
>
>
>Not entirely, there's a grain of truth in it - but as and when legislation is proposed we have far
>better arguments to rely on than low wearing rates.

Guy, I just have no faith at all that logical arguments will stand a cat's chance when weighed up by
non-cycling MPs faced by a hostile constituancy press, grieving mums and the powerful victim-blaming
motorist lobby.

Non-compliance and the resultant impracticality of compulsion is the most powerful tool we have. In
my discussions with non-cyclists (including a few MPs) the current low level of use is frequently
the *only* argument turns them from a 'compulsion now' stance.

The pressure for compulsion out there in the 'real world' of non-cyclists is immense.

Take my council as an example. We all received a mailshot from BHIT (or similar - I forget who). At
the next mtg there was a motion on the table that the cll write to govt. demanding a helmet law
asap. The proposer of this was lauded in the local rag and letters of praise cascaded in. Apart from
mine, there was *not one* opposing voice either in the press, in letters or in the cll chamber. And
I was pilloried. Now, I know that local clls writing letters to govt is pointless posturing but it
really got my goat. Apparently I was pretty convincing in my minority of one because, after I'd
ranted, the words were changed to something along the lines of "we demand a programme of promotion
to increase usage and allow compulsion asap". The *only* argument that was heard was that of current
impracticality.

Forget logic, forget research, forget good stats. This battle will be fought on emotion vs.
practicality of implementation. If you want to fight you know what you have to do.

We are now into the danger zone where an MHL is a real threat. If this happens it will kill utility
cycling dead and we'll be in a US style environment; participants in a minority dangerous sport.

PS. I'm grateful for these eternal helmet threads because they really have forced me to look hard at
the subject.
 
[Not Responding] wrote:
>
>
> Forget logic, forget research, forget good stats. This battle will be fought on emotion vs.
> practicality of implementation. If you want to fight you know what you have to do.
>

I find the statement by the NCS Board quite persuasive. I'm using that as they are the body tasked
by Government to promote cycling and it is well worded. At the end its easy to say BHIT is a
single interest pressure group but the Government body responsible for cycling is recommending
strongly against.

Tony
 
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:53:17 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I find the statement by the NCS Board quite persuasive.

This threw me into a panic, since I thought I had finished and was about to send my letter and
hadn't seen a NCS Board statement, and it doesn't spring very readily to hand at
http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk/index.html (at least, it didn't for me).

To save anyone else the strain (hoping that I'm not being dense and that it wasn't quoted 10 minutes
ago), it says:

NCS Board- statement on cycle helmets

STATEMENT OF POLICY: CYCLE HELMET WEARING

The National Cycling Strategy Board for England was established by the Department for Transport in
2000 and attracts all-party political support. Its remit is to deliver significant increases in the
number of trips by bicycle, in line with the targets in the National Cycling Strategy. To do this
the Board seeks to promote safe and sensible cycle use, and works for a more secure traffic
environment for cycling.

Reducing the level of risk for cyclists can be brought about through investment in better training
and education, as well as through traffic management and engineering. These are all essential
features of the NCS Board?s approach. The Board also recognises that all road users, including
pedestrians, are vulnerable to the risk of accident, so that educational measures need to reach
others as well as cyclists.

Cycling has an important part to play in our lives as a mode of transport for short journeys. It
offers notable environmental benefits. And as a regular means of exercise it gives large gains in
public health, helping to reduce levels of obesity, coronary heart disease and stroke.

There is now clear evidence that increases in the numbers of people cycling do not lead to a pro-
rata increase in accidents. Instead, as levels of cycling increase it becomes safer to cycle, an
effect which results in part from greater awareness by all road users of cyclists.

Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other
hand claim it as the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark. In
particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an inevitably dangerous or hazardous activity,
or which suggest that helmet wearing should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the delivery of
those very benefits to health and environment which cycling can deliver: they also serve to confuse
the general public about the wider social and economic advantages of cycling. As a result, the NCS
Board is anxious that the question of wearing helmets is placed in its proper context.

The NCS Board has a clear view on this issue, which is that it must remain a decision for
individuals as to whether to wear a helmet for some or all of their various cycle activities.
Parents will need to take this decision on behalf of their children, bearing in mind all the
particular circumstances. But any mandatory requirement to wear helmets on all occasions would
greatly dilute the benefits which safe cycling can offer our society as a whole.

NCS Board 14 January 2004

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:51:36 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

:)Tony, are you going to follow this up at all? I have some questions )which this response does
:nothig to answer. Specifically, ) ) )- what evidence do they have for prioritising helmets above,
:say, )roadcraft training... ) )Guy

... for car drivers !
--
Comm again, Mike.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Forget logic, forget research, forget good stats. This battle will be fought on emotion vs.
> > practicality of implementation. If you want to fight you know what you have to do.
> >
>
> I find the statement by the NCS Board quite persuasive. I'm using that as they are the body tasked
> by Government to promote cycling and it is well worded. At the end its easy to say BHIT is a
> single interest pressure
group
> but the Government body responsible for cycling is recommending strongly against.
>

The government body responsible for cycling is the DfT and they are rabidly pro-compulsion.

> Tony
 
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:53:17 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > I find the statement by the NCS Board quite persuasive.
>
>
> Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other
> hand claim it as the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark.

Anyone else spot the logical inconsistency? Either one or other of these statements can be true:
either the argument that helmets don't work, or that they are effective, but not both. Might one
enquire as to which they actually believe to be true? or are they just sitting on the fence?

> The NCS Board has a clear view on this issue, which is that it must remain a decision for
> individuals as to whether to wear a helmet for some or all of their various cycle activities.
> Parents will need to take this decision on behalf of their children, bearing in mind all the
> particular circumstances. But any mandatory requirement to wear helmets on all occasions would
> greatly dilute the benefits which safe cycling can offer our society as a whole.
>
> NCS Board 14 January 2004
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|
 
burt wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:53:17 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I find the statement by the NCS Board quite persuasive.
>>
>>
>> Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other
>> hand claim it as the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark.
>
> Anyone else spot the logical inconsistency? Either one or other of these statements can be true:
> either the argument that helmets don't work, or that they are effective, but not both. Might one
> enquire as to which they actually believe to be true? or are they just sitting on the fence?
>

there is no logical inconsistency.

From the original, rephrased:

Helemts are ineffective and usless - is wrong

Helmets are the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists - is wrong. pk
 
"burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the
> > other hand claim it as the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of
> > the mark.
>
> Anyone else spot the logical inconsistency? Either one or other of these statements can be true:
> either the argument that helmets don't work, or that they are effective, but not both. Might one
> enquire as to which they actually believe to be true? or are they just sitting on the fence?

I think they're suggetsing that they are effective to some extent, but are not the most important
factor in reducing injury to cyclists.

--
Dave...
 
"burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Anyone else spot the logical inconsistency? Either one or other of these statements can be true:
> either the argument that helmets don't work, or
that
> they are effective, but not both. Might one enquire as to which they actually believe to be true?
> or are they just sitting on the fence?

Where's the inconsistency? It is perfectly possible for device X reduces injuries in a crash, but to
have no overall effect on injury rates because it induces greater risk-taking leading to more
crashes. Thus both statements can be true. And both can be misrepresented.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads