Compulsory helmets again!



Status
Not open for further replies.
nik <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > pig pog <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > > 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)
>
> > Could you tell us what they are and where to find them?
>
> I don't know about these figures but the government tell us that in
> 2002: 22 child pedal cyclists were killed; 594 killed or seriously injured and a figure of 4,809
> for 'all severities' so I don't see how 28,000 kids could have got serious head injuries!
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_506510.xls

Thanks.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
 
"nik" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > pig pog <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I don't know about these figures but the government tell us that in
> 2002: 22 child pedal cyclists were killed; 594 killed or seriously injured and a figure of 4,809
> for 'all severities' so I don't see how 28,000 kids could have got serious head injuries!
>
>
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_506510.xls
>
> Nik

and "Child Cyclists

2.5 Child cyclists killed or seriously injured are fewer in number than child pedestrians."

from the report available at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507867.pdf>

So more child pedestrians are killed than child cyclists, which begs the question why don't BHIT
bother themselves with child pedestrians where their actions would be more effective? Unless, of
course, they are obsessed about the miniscule dangers of cycling.
 
"nik" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > pig pog <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> I don't know about these figures but the government tell us that in
> 2002: 22 child pedal cyclists were killed; 594 killed or seriously injured and a figure of 4,809
> for 'all severities' so I don't see how 28,000 kids could have got serious head injuries!
>
>
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_506510.xls
>
> Nik

and "2.6 The remaining major problem area for children killed or seriously injured is when
travelling as passengers in cars. These represent a greater proportion of child KSI than cyclists."

from the same report at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507867.pdf

Perhaps it's time BHIT had a look at their version of reality, it would appear to be malfunctioning,
and in severe need of an update.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> [1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in time
> to take the bend.

That summons up a great cartoon like mental image. Bet it felt like you were in mid air for ages!

LOL!

pk
 
Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> In other words, the net saving of life is likely to be nil and may well be negative, and the
> impact on general health is certain to be negative. There seems to me _every_ reason to oppose
> this legislation.
>
> [1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in time
> to take the bend.

Based on your experiences, however based on mine, my best friend died when I was 17, he fell off his
bicycle and suffered head injuries.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
"PK" <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > [1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in
> > time to take the bend.
>
> That summons up a great cartoon like mental image. Bet it felt like you were in mid air for ages!

Well the real truth is that there was a T junction immediately after the bridge, which was at the
bottom of a good steep hill. We usually jumped this bridge and carried straight on, which was OK.
On this particular occasion I decided to jump the bridge and turn right... only there turned out
not to be enough road and I went into the wood before, I think, my wheels touched tarmac at all.
_Totally_ stupid.

This was on the first occasion that my parents had gone away for the week leaving me alone in the
house - I would have been thirteen or fourteen, I think.

But yes, it was a most excellent shunt!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
 
Ian <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> > In other words, the net saving of life is likely to be nil and may well be negative, and the
> > impact on general health is certain to be negative. There seems to me _every_ reason to oppose
> > this legislation.
> >
> > [1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in
> > time to take the bend.
>
> Based on your experiences, however based on mine, my best friend died when I was 17, he fell off
> his bicycle and suffered head injuries.

Not flaming or anyhting, but on this occasion do you believe a helmet would have made a significant
difference? I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm just asking what you think.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
 
Ian <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
> >
> > What counts as 'responible' in this instance?
>
> It is not a case of "this instance", some parents are not responsible people full stop.

Well, that's true, of course!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
 
"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBD16FA5.1640A%[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
> >
> > What counts as 'responible' in this instance?
>
> It is not a case of "this instance", some parents are not responsible
people
> full stop.

So you think these irresponsible parents will ensure their kids wear helmets to comply with the law
if wearing becomes compulsory?

It's a rare event to see a paperboy/girl (for the PC nazis) using lights during these dark mornings
and evenings so their parents are irresponsible, the papershops complicit and the local newspaper
hypocritical as they would crusade if they believed another industry was using teenagers in such a
manner for profit.

Pete
 
Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
>>
>>> In other words, the net saving of life is likely to be nil and may well be negative, and the
>>> impact on general health is certain to be negative. There seems to me _every_ reason to oppose
>>> this legislation.
>>>
>>> [1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in
>>> time to take the bend.
>>
>> Based on your experiences, however based on mine, my best friend died when I was 17, he fell off
>> his bicycle and suffered head injuries.
>
> Not flaming or anyhting, but on this occasion do you believe a helmet would have made a
> significant difference? I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm just asking what you think.
It could well have.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Ian wrote:

> JohnB must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> >
> >
> > PK wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, so you agree that not wearing a helmet is danerous? (;-)
> >
> > I'm sitting here in front of my Mac and *not* wearing a helmet. It's not dangerous at all.
> >
> >
> > Damn, the PC in the corner has just crashed ;-)
> >
> > John B
> >
> Was it wearing a helmet?

Nah... so it was its own fault. Can't even blame Mr Gates.

John B
 
Tony W wrote:
> You are at higher risk at home than cycling. So put your helmet on immediately.

If I wear a helmet round the house then I have to duck to avoid hitting my head when I walk down the
stairs. That doesn't make me any safer
:p

--
Danny Colyer (cover cow with a net to reply) http://www.juggler.net/danny Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
 
I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:

I note that you have signed Early Day Motion no. 1783. Please be aware that it contains
factual errors:

"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"

According to the DfT's published statistics, in 2002 there were 4,809 child cyclist injuries of all
severities, to all parts of the body, of which 594 were serious or fatal. The figure of 28,000
"serious head injuries" is in excess of the total reported cyclist injuries, all ages, all
severities.

"recognises that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of such head injuries could be
prevented"

The authors of the study from which the 85% figure is taken have since published much lower
estimates following criticisms of the methodology and sample used. Even with the lower numbers this
study is not considered reliable, mainly due to sample bias (it also "proves" that helmets reduce
leg and torso injuries). This has been documented by John Franklin (http://www.lesberries.co.uk),
author of the advanced cycling manual Cyclecraft, published by The Stationery Office.

No real-world population has ever demonstrated even one tenth of the claimed reductions in head
injuries following introduction of a helmet law, claims which range from 16% up to the 85%
erroneously quoted in the EDM. Most populations record a substantial drop in numbers cycling, with
an equivalent reduction in numbers injured, leaving the injury rate the same. Some populations
indicate a worrying rise in injury rates.

Nor is that the only source of contra-indication. Casualty rates for cyclists and pedestrians have
historically tracked each other closely. An investigation of these trends over twenty years, a
period during which helmet wearing rose by up to 50% in some areas, shows no measurable
differential. Similar studies in New York, analysing only child pedestrian and child cyclist
casualties, reaches the same conclusion: although by the end of the study period over 40% of child
cyclists were wearing helmets, their casualty rate had varied exactly as the pedestrian casualty
rate. The helmets had no measurable effect.

This is so counter-intuitive that it took me a long time to accept it. As a parent of young children
who are keen cyclists you can imagine that I am not inclined to take such things on trust. It is a
real puzzle, and as far as I am aware the Government has not yet commissioned any research to
establish why it is that widespread use of cycle helmets consistently fails to realise not just the
claimed benefits, but indeed any measurable benefit whatsoever.

What is clear, though, is that embarking on a course of action when such an enormous gulf exists
between the claimed benefits and the actual effects in real populations would be foolish. It
demands at the very least a thorough investigation of the reasons why the claimed benefits have
never been realised in practice - those who do not learn from their mistakes are, after all, doomed
to repeat them.

"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."

BHIT admits that 90% of child cycle injuries occur off road (by implication on private land).
The proposal would only affect those riding on the road, the vast majority of whom are in any
case not children (one presumes that Government is not intending to force use of personal
protective equipment by private individuals on private land, as this would set a very
far-reaching precedent indeed).

Road crashes are of course a concern. But cycle helmets are designed to protect in single vehicle
crashes at speeds up to about 12mph. As soon as a motor vehicle is involved, any crash will almost
by definition exceed the design parameters of any commercially available pedal cycle helmet. Read
the manufacturers' disclaimers.

So we have come from "28,000 children" via some statistics which not even their authors now
support to a call to force primarily adult cyclists riding, for the most part, in a completely
different environment, to wear a helmet to protect them against something it is not designed to
protect against.

"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"

Can we really describe their work as "excellent?" Undoubtedly they mean well, but excellence implies
very high standards and a thoroughly thought-through agenda. I do not seek to discredit BHIT, but I
would take issue with any description of them as "excellent." For example:

- BHIT continue to publish the 85% claim, despite the fact, of which they must by now be fully
aware, that not even its authors now support it. This is not just misleading but actively
dangerous: impressionable youngsters may be persuaded that they can engage in more dangerous
behaviour than they otherwise would, and that a helmet will protect them from the consequences of
foolishness. This is not "excellent."

- BHIT have claimed in the press that if all children wore cycle helmets it would save the NHS £2
billion per year. According to the Office of National Statistics the NHS spends £1.5 billion per
year treating children under 16 for all conditions, injuries and ailments. It is not possible for
child head injuries preventable by cycle helmets to yield BHITs claimed savings. This is not
"excellent."

- BHIT have claimed in the press that helmets do not deter cycling, and that the substantial
reduction in numbers cycling in Australia post- law was due to a reduction in the legal age for
driving by one year. This, too, is incorrect. The drop in adult cycling was around 20% (and the
drop in teenage cycling around 45%). This is not "excellent."

BHIT is a single-issue campaign group which has consistently said that it will have achieved its
objective when every cyclist wears a helmet. They have never attempted to establish whether helmet
compulsion would yield better results than, say, a programme of good quality roadcraft training in
schools. This tunnel vision may be acceptable for a pressure group but not for a legislature. No
crash is caused by failure to wear a helmet, and compulsion will not prevent a single crash. As such
their campaign is wholly focused on the symptoms, introducing a "cure" which should be rendered
entirely redundant by a successful campaign targeted on the causes of the problem. A cure, moreover,
which is proven to carry with it at least one undesirable side-effect: substantial reductions in the
numbers cycling.
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:05:06 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> the wall might, too. When I was a kid we rode far further on our bikes than kids do now, and I
> can't recall anyone who suffered _any_ serious injury in a push-bike accident.

Well, mate of my brothers was really proud of thge duration of his wheelies. Pulled a nice big one
and teh front wheel fell out. For some reason, decided coming down forwards onto tarmac was safer
than going over the back. Removed pretty much all his front teeth, and re-arranged various soft bits
of his face too.

I broke my finger - fall off bike, put arms out in front to break fall, insert fingers down drain
grating and fall over the top of them, leaving them dangling loose.

Those are the two most serious I can think of, and neither was very life threatening, nor resulted
in long-term diability.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:40:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:

Although I agree with just about every word I feel it's far too long and detailed to send to an MP.
They don't have time to read all that and probably will not bother. It might also mention that the
BMA are opposed to compulsion, though in favour of voluntary helmet wearing. Also, people should not
copy Guy's letter but write their own. Identical letters will be detected and ignored.

It might be an idea to find out how the MPs divide among us. Each person could then stress different
points in his own words, while making sure that each MP's letters taken as a whole cover all the
points. Mine is Vincent Cable, who has signed the EDM.

The cynical side of me suspects that most of the MPs who've signed this motion couldn't give a stuff
about cyclists or helmets. They simply want to be seen to be concerned about protecting children.
This is what gives BHIT such an advantage.

--
Dave...
 
May I suggest you edit it down to two or three paragraphs? Its very detailed and thorough but no
MP will wade through a tome of that length and the complexity of many of the arguements will
pass them by

Tony

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:
>
>
>
>
> I note that you have signed Early Day Motion no. 1783. Please be aware that it contains
> factual errors:
>
> "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"
>
> According to the DfT's published statistics, in 2002 there were 4,809 child cyclist injuries of
> all severities, to all parts of the body, of which 594 were serious or fatal. The figure of 28,000
> "serious head injuries" is in excess of the total reported cyclist injuries, all ages, all
> severities.
>
>
> "recognises that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of such head injuries could be
> prevented"
>
> The authors of the study from which the 85% figure is taken have since published much lower
> estimates following criticisms of the methodology and sample used. Even with the lower numbers
> this study is not considered reliable, mainly due to sample bias (it also "proves" that helmets
> reduce leg and torso injuries). This has been documented by John Franklin
> (http://www.lesberries.co.uk), author of the advanced cycling manual Cyclecraft, published by The
> Stationery Office.
>
> No real-world population has ever demonstrated even one tenth of the claimed reductions in head
> injuries following introduction of a helmet law, claims which range from 16% up to the 85%
> erroneously quoted in the EDM. Most populations record a substantial drop in numbers cycling, with
> an equivalent reduction in numbers injured, leaving the injury rate the same. Some populations
> indicate a worrying rise in injury rates.
>
> Nor is that the only source of contra-indication. Casualty rates for cyclists and pedestrians have
> historically tracked each other closely. An investigation of these trends over twenty years, a
> period during which helmet wearing rose by up to 50% in some areas, shows no measurable
> differential. Similar studies in New York, analysing only child pedestrian and child cyclist
> casualties, reaches the same conclusion: although by the end of the study period over 40% of child
> cyclists were wearing helmets, their casualty rate had varied exactly as the pedestrian casualty
> rate. The helmets had no measurable effect.
>
> This is so counter-intuitive that it took me a long time to accept
> it. As a parent of young children who are keen cyclists you can imagine that I am not inclined to
> take such things on trust. It is a real puzzle, and as far as I am aware the Government has
> not yet commissioned any research to establish why it is that widespread use of cycle helmets
> consistently fails to realise not just the claimed benefits, but indeed any measurable
> benefit whatsoever.
>
> What is clear, though, is that embarking on a course of action when such an enormous gulf exists
> between the claimed benefits and the actual effects in real populations would be foolish. It
> demands at the very least a thorough investigation of the reasons why the claimed benefits have
> never been realised in practice - those who do not learn from their mistakes are, after all,
> doomed to repeat them.
>
>
> "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."
>
> BHIT admits that 90% of child cycle injuries occur off road (by implication on private land). The
> proposal would only affect those riding on the road, the vast majority of whom are in any case not
> children (one presumes that Government is not intending to force use of personal protective
> equipment by private individuals on private land, as this would set a very far-reaching precedent
> indeed).
>
> Road crashes are of course a concern. But cycle helmets are designed to protect in single vehicle
> crashes at speeds up to about 12mph. As soon as a motor vehicle is involved, any crash will almost
> by definition exceed the design parameters of any commercially available pedal cycle helmet. Read
> the manufacturers' disclaimers.
>
> So we have come from "28,000 children" via some statistics which not even their authors now
> support to a call to force primarily adult cyclists riding, for the most part, in a completely
> different environment, to wear a helmet to protect them against something it is not designed to
> protect against.
>
>
> "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"
>
> Can we really describe their work as "excellent?" Undoubtedly they mean well, but excellence
> implies very high standards and a thoroughly thought-through agenda. I do not seek to discredit
> BHIT, but I would take issue with any description of them as "excellent." For example:
>
> - BHIT continue to publish the 85% claim, despite the fact, of which they must by now be fully
> aware, that not even its authors now support it. This is not just misleading but actively
> dangerous: impressionable youngsters may be persuaded that they can engage in more dangerous
> behaviour than they otherwise would, and that a helmet will protect them from the consequences
> of foolishness. This is not "excellent."
>
> - BHIT have claimed in the press that if all children wore cycle helmets it would save the NHS £2
> billion per year. According to the Office of National Statistics the NHS spends £1.5 billion per
> year treating children under 16 for all conditions, injuries and ailments. It is not possible
> for child head injuries preventable by cycle helmets to yield BHITs claimed savings. This is not
> "excellent."
>
> - BHIT have claimed in the press that helmets do not deter cycling, and that the substantial
> reduction in numbers cycling in Australia post- law was due to a reduction in the legal age for
> driving by one year. This, too, is incorrect. The drop in adult cycling was around 20% (and the
> drop in teenage cycling around 45%). This is not "excellent."
>
> BHIT is a single-issue campaign group which has consistently said that it will have achieved its
> objective when every cyclist wears a helmet. They have never attempted to establish whether helmet
> compulsion would yield better results than, say, a programme of good quality roadcraft training in
> schools. This tunnel vision may be acceptable for a pressure group but not for a legislature. No
> crash is caused by failure to wear a helmet, and compulsion will not prevent a single crash. As
> such their campaign is wholly focused on the symptoms, introducing a "cure" which should be
> rendered entirely redundant by a successful campaign targeted on the causes of the problem. A
> cure, moreover, which is proven to carry with it at least one undesirable side-effect: substantial
> reductions in the numbers cycling.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:

[snip]

Most excellent post, which I shall refer to in drafting my own letter. One point you miss, which I
believe to be worth making: obesity is a serious problem in children and young people today, which
will lead to an increase in serious heart conditions and diabetes in later life. Children need more,
not less exercise. As imposing helmets is extremely likely to reduce the numbers of children
cycling, it's likely to increase deaths from diabetes and heart disease and it's highly likely that
these deaths will vastly outnumber the number of lives 'saved'.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Replies
363
Views
11K
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
S
Replies
0
Views
718
UK and Europe
Steve McGinty
S