Compulsory helmets again!

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Richard Burton, Nov 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
    wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
    latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.

    "An attempt to introduce this was made previously by Bristol MP Jean Corston - this attempt failed.
    However, this latest attempt already has 46 signatories (Jean Corston isn't one of them yet, nor any
    other Bristol MPs) - the proposer is Alan Meale (Mansfield).

    Attached is a copy of a letter from a CTC member to his MP re the EDM on helmets which might be
    useful as a template if BCC members want to respond similarly. The general thought is that this EDM
    will fail due to lack of time, but might be being used as a marker for inclusion in a road safety
    bill expected next year.

    There is a lot of info generally about helmets - CTC are drawing up a briefing linking the issue
    with cycling for health (stating that compulsory helmet use would have a major detrimental overall
    effect on health) - http://www.ctc.org.uk

    Here is a website that has been recommended as a good resource for info based on the American
    experience:

    <http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html>

    Copy of letter sent to MP rejecting the Early Day Motion:

    Could I draw your attention to the Early Day Motion on behalf of the BICYCLE HELMET INITIATIVE
    TRUST and warn you that this motion is full of factual errors if not deliberate deception. The
    motion states:-

    BICYCLE HELMET INITIATIVE TRUST

    That this House notes that every year in the UK approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16
    years receive a serious head injury as a result of a cycling accident and that sadly a number die as
    a result, whilst for many others their accident will have a devastating impact on their life, in
    many cases restricting their abilities to develop, learn new skills, make new friends and face the
    lifelong challenges of the world; recognizes that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of
    such head injuries could be prevented; commends the excellent campaign of the Bicycle Helmet
    Initiative Trust to get Parliament to introduce legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by all
    bicyclists in the UK; and calls upon her Majesty's Government to give its full support to such a
    proposal which would both save lives and stop injuries on our roads. The 28,000 figure is false.
    This is the figure for head injuries from ALL causes not from Cycling. The figure recorded from
    cycling is 1,200. In order to save the other 26,800 perhaps all children should be made to wear
    helmets at all times even in bed as falling out of bed can cause severe head injury.

    The suggestion that 85% of these injuries could be prevented by wearing a cycle helmet is an absurd
    fiction. Research by the TRL suggested a figure of 16% however there is also evidence from Australia
    that wearing helmets increases the frequency of serious neck injuries.

    There is no evidence that the compulsory wearing of helmets saves lives and reduces injuries.
    Figures from Australia show that the compulsory wearing of helmets brought about a major reduction
    in cycling particularly among teenagers. The claimed reduction in head injuries was less than the
    reduction in the amount of cycling so there was no reduction in the "Danger" of cycling.

    Promotion of cycle helmets based on exaggerating the risks of cycling has the effect of reducing the
    amount of cycling. Compulsory use of helmets would reduce cycling even more. Not only is this
    contrary to the government's National Cycle Strategy but the consequent reduction in healthy
    exercise will increase the number of premature deaths from heart disease. Some time since the BMA
    came out against compulsion for this reason.

    In Holland hardly anyone wears cycling helmets yet they do not have a problem with cycling head
    injuries despite the vast number of cyclists of all ages.

    I am not against helmets all together. For stunt riding and racing they may be appropriate though
    the protection they give is limited to low speed impacts with flat surfaces. I am totally against
    compulsion in this area as the case for them is at best unproven while the damage to cycling of
    compulsion has been demonstrated in Australia and elsewhere.

    So finally, I would ask you to reject this Early Day Motion and to warn your friends of the
    falsehoods and dangers in it.

    Regards"
     
    Tags:


  2. In news:[email protected], Richard Burton
    <[email protected]> typed:
    > Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    > ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
    > wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
    > latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.

    To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page

    http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783

    (it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)

    A
     
  3. Ian

    Ian Guest

    Ambrose Nankivell must be edykated coz e writed:

    > In news:[email protected], Richard Burton
    > <[email protected]> typed:
    >> Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    >> ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
    >> wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
    >> latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
    >
    > To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page
    >
    > http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783
    >
    > (it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)
    >
    > A
    >
    >
    At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should be
    down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

    --
    Ian

    http://www.catrike.co.uk
     
  4. Ian

    Ian Guest

    Ambrose Nankivell must be edykated coz e writed:

    > In news:[email protected], Richard Burton
    > <[email protected]> typed:
    >> Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    >> ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
    >> wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
    >> latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
    >
    > To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page
    >
    > http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783
    >
    > (it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)
    >
    > A
    >
    >
    OOO, just noticed the best bit, compulsory for bicyclists, not so for tricyclists, so a jaunt to
    the cafe sans helmet would still be ok for me. So on the great British tradition of "I'm alright
    Jack" ........

    --
    Ian

    http://www.catrike.co.uk
     
  5. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    > ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and
    the
    > numbers of children who would be saved by wearing one. The MPs have
    signed
    > an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the latest
    count,
    > by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.

    <snip>

    Has anyone stopped to think of what would actually happen if this became "Da Law" ?..... I can't
    help thinking that it would probably be policed about as well as the "not riding on the pavement"
    law and the "using lights at night" law. Remember, we are all cyclists so don't really matter,
    therefore our precious police time shouldn't be wasted by reinforcing any law that *might* be
    beneficial to cyclists... (no offence intended to law enforcement there, merely politicians and they
    can *all* go fcuk 'emselves ;-). I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It won't be
    enforced anyway so if you've got a particular stance with regards to this you can carry on going
    helmetless anyway.....(just means you'll be a criminal in the eyes of the law and join all those
    others guilty of victimless crimes that the Govnt. seem intent on filling our jails with)... Just my
    pointless 2 euro worth... Dave ;-)
     
  6. Robert Bruce

    Robert Bruce Guest

    mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    > OOO, just noticed the best bit, compulsory for bicyclists, not so for tricyclists, so a jaunt to
    > the cafe sans helmet would still be ok for
    > me. So on the great British tradition of "I'm alright Jack" ........

    AFAIK, helmets are compulsory for two-wheeled motorcycles but not for three-wheelers, so this
    proposal would be consistent with that. Not that there's any reason that it should be.

    --
    Rob

    Wildly Out Of Date Excel VBA Programming Stuff from the Heart of Wales:
    www.analytical-dynamics.co.uk/

    Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute and benefit.
     
  7. pig pog

    pig pog New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have sources for either of those figures? There has been some discussion of this on Urban Cyclist UK and the same claim (that 28000 is a figure for all serious head injuries) but it wasn't attributed either. No one has managed to find a good source for the actual figure for total child cycling releated serious head injuries although since legislation would be likely to be restricted to on-road cycling it is only fair to compare with the stats for on-road injuries (which seem to have the added attraction of existing)

    best wishes
    james
     
  8. Robert Bruce

    Robert Bruce Guest

    mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

    > I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It won't be enforced anyway so if you've
    > got a particular stance with regards to this you can carry on going helmetless anyway.....(just
    > means you'll be a criminal in the eyes of the law and join all those others guilty of victimless
    > crimes that the Govnt. seem intent on filling our jails with)...

    All very well until some nutter in an SUV breaks both your legs and his/her insurers fail to pay up
    because you weren't wearing compulsory safety equipment.

    --
    Rob

    Wildly Out Of Date Excel VBA Programming Stuff from the Heart of Wales:
    www.analytical-dynamics.co.uk/

    Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute and benefit.
     
  9. Johnb

    Johnb Guest

    Dave wrote:

    > "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    > > ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and
    > the
    > > numbers of children who would be saved by wearing one. The MPs have
    > signed
    > > an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the latest
    > count,
    > > by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Has anyone stopped to think of what would actually happen if this became "Da Law" ?..... I can't
    > help thinking that it would probably be policed about as well as the "not riding on the pavement"
    > law and the "using lights at night" law. Remember, we are all cyclists so don't really matter,
    > therefore our precious police time shouldn't be wasted by reinforcing any law that *might* be
    > beneficial to cyclists... (no offence intended to law enforcement there, merely politicians and
    > they can *all* go fcuk 'emselves ;-). I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It
    > won't be enforced anyway.......

    I beleive that to be a very naive view, and a dangerous one. It may not be enforced by the police or
    similar bodies but it sure will by the insurance companies.

    If you are involved in a collision and injured (or worse), you would certainly have any damages
    severely cut, perhaps to nothing. Even if it was not your fault you will be seen as putting yourself
    deliberately at risk from increased injury by flouting the helmet law.

    As it is, motorists get away with near murder with derisory penalties.

    If you were not wearing a helmet they could simply drive into you and claim you should have been
    protecting yourself so deserve what you get. The bully will have won. Even if Mr Plod turns a blind
    eye, I fear the courts would uphold this view if you were helmetless and this law were passed.

    John B
     
  10. Pk

    Pk Guest

    Ian wrote:
    >>>
    >>
    > At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should be
    > down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

    Seems a very reasonable position to me.

    pk
     
  11. W K

    W K Guest

    "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Ian wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>
    > > At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
    > > be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
    >
    > Seems a very reasonable position to me.

    Not really, as there is no real need for it, and a good chance that the "28,000" "serious head
    injuries" are not done on public roads. It strikes me as being a bit too much "something must be
    done", rather than bothering looking into whether it makes much difference.

    I note that the MPs want to vote to say that the house believes that helmets prevent 85% of injuries
    and deaths.

    So they must be a good thing eh? Who'd vote for turning kids into vegetables?
     
  12. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > > At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
    > > be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
    >
    > Seems a very reasonable position to me.

    Seems a dangerous extension of the nanny state to me. Something the H&S Nazis are continuously
    trying to do.

    What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?

    T
     
  13. Marc

    Marc Guest

    W K <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Who'd vote for turning kids into vegetables?

    Most Cub leaders after a pack night!

    --
    Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
    types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
    and dealers.
     
  14. Johnb

    Johnb Guest

    marc wrote:

    > W K <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Who'd vote for turning kids into vegetables?
    >
    > Most Cub leaders after a pack night!

    Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.

    What's going on?

    John B
     
  15. W K

    W K Guest

    "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > marc wrote:
    >
    > > W K <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Who'd vote for turning kids into vegetables?
    > >
    > > Most Cub leaders after a pack night!
    >
    > Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.
    >
    > What's going on?

    Other kids may be agog. Almost like seeing a chunk of moon rock or a diplodocus poo.
     
  16. Henry Braun

    Henry Braun Guest

    On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Richard Burton wrote:
    > Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
    > ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
    > wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
    > latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
    >
    > Attached is a copy of a letter from a CTC member to his MP re the EDM on helmets which might be
    > useful as a template if BCC members want to respond similarly. The general thought is that this
    > EDM will fail due to lack of time, but might be being used as a marker for inclusion in a road
    > safety bill expected next year.

    As I understand it Early Day Motions can't really "fail" or succeed: they are merely a way for MPs
    to register their political opinions and draw attention to issues that concern them. They don't get
    any parliamentary time at all, unlike the more significant Private Members' Bills (which do usually
    fail for lack of time), and it would take many more than the 50-odd signatures that this EDM has
    gathered to push the government into proposing a new law. As it stands we know that about 1 MP in 13
    would be minded before the debate to vote for compulsion---not a great threat.

    It's perhaps not entirely a bad thing, wherever you stand on helmets, if 54 MPs are sufficiently
    engaged with the matter to put their names to one side of the debate; they are certainly opening an
    invitation for people to write to them on the issue.
     
  17. "Henry Braun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    >
    > It's perhaps not entirely a bad thing, wherever you stand on helmets, if 54 MPs are sufficiently
    > engaged with the matter to put their names to one side of the debate; they are certainly opening
    > an invitation for people to write to them on the issue.

    what does concern me is that 54 of the highest in the land are gullible enough to swallow absurd
    lies put about by people like BHIT. They aren't engaged witht the matter of cyclists' safety, they
    are engaged in the matter of portraying cycling as dangerous and not to be undertaken without
    special safety equipment. The fact that so many of our elected leaders can be so easily misled by a
    obsessive propaganda organisation should be of concern to all of us.
     
  18. Ian

    Ian Guest

    Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:

    >
    > "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
    >>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
    >>
    >> Seems a very reasonable position to me.
    >
    > Seems a dangerous extension of the nanny state to me. Something the H&S Nazis are continuously
    > trying to do.
    >
    > What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
    >
    > T
    >
    >
    >
    They aren't all responsible.
    --
    Ian

    http://www.catrike.co.uk
     
  19. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

  20. Marc

    Marc Guest

    JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > > Who'd vote for turning kids into vegetables?
    > >
    > > Most Cub leaders after a pack night!
    >
    > Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.
    >
    > What's going on?

    Errr This is one of those tests they throw at you during training sessions isn't it?

    Four vegetables... what can we do with that?

    Cooking for chefs badge?

    Discussion on where the Veg came from Global challenge badge?

    Printing with them , Creative badge?

    Tasting raw or cooked, World Around Us Zone?

    Blindfold guessing of veg, World Around Us Zone?

    Discusssion on what veg to eat, what's in them etc..Health and Fitness Zone?

    Discussion of price/food miles, Global Challenge badge?

    Do I pass?


    --
    Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
    types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
    and dealers.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...