More h*l*e* bullshit

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Richard Burton, Jun 19, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The following article appeared in today's Times. There is a very small reward for anyone spotting
    the similarities between this article and the DfT's campaign about helmets. And I mean small!

    "June 19, 2003

    Boys snub uncool cycle helmets By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

    TEENAGE boys are risking their lives by refusing to wear cycle helmets because they
    consider them "uncool", a study has found.

    The use of cycle helmets has risen among every other section of the population in the
    past eight years but has fallen from 16 per cent to 12 per cent among teenage boys,
    according to Department for Transport figures.

    Boy cyclists are five times more likely than girls to have serious accidents but only
    half as likely to wear a helmet.

    Three child safety charities have now joined forces to call on the Government to make
    helmets compulsory for children under 16. The Child Brain Injury Trust, Headway and the
    Bicycle Helmet Initiative believe that teenage boys will be persuaded to wear helmets
    only if a new law is passed.

    Angela Lee, the chief executive of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative, said: "Teenage boys
    are under tremendous peer pressure not to wear helmets in case their friends laugh at
    them. If there was a new law obliging them to wear a helmet, then they would no longer
    need to justify themselves."

    One child under the age of 16 dies every week in Britain of head injuries suffered in a
    cycling accident. A further 60 suffer serious head injuries. Children under 16 account
    for half of all cyclist head injuries.

    Studies have shown that at least 75 per cent of head in- juries would be prevented if
    the cyclist were wearing a helmet. But cycling groups say that forcing people to wear
    helmets would make them less likely to cycle and undermine efforts to get people out of
    their cars and on to bikes. Cycling fell by 40 per cent among children in Australian
    states in the early 1990s after helmets became compulsory.

    David Jamieson, the Road Safety Minister, said that he was reluctant to consider a new
    law on cycle helmets because it would be difficult to enforce. "It is very worrrying
    that only one in eight boys wears a helmet, but a new law would criminalise a lot of
    people for going about their everyday activity," he said."

    anyone wishing to reply to this garbage may do so by emailing [email protected] .
    for the record, most of the claims made by BHIT and others in this article are
    demonstrably untrue e.g.the claim that one child dies every week from head injuries
    sustained whilst cycling, the actual figure from 2001 (latest available) is less than
    half that. Why does anybody still believe anything those t*****rs say?
     
    Tags:


  2. Marc

    Marc Guest

    Richard Burton <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Why does anybody still believe anything those t*****rs say?

    Because they can manage sentences without using a mulitude of asterix?
     
  3. W K

    W K Guest

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

    > Boy cyclists are five times more likely than girls to have serious accidents but only
    > half as likely to wear a helmet.

    So, reduce the level off foolishness in boys instead and they'll only be
    2.5x more likely.

    What was the level of head injuries in the early 80's I can remember lots of broken collar bones,
    and lots of people flying through the air in woods.
     
  4. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:39:36 +0100, "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:

    My reply:

    Sir,

    I am tremendously encouraged by your report that teenage boys are risking their lives by refusing to
    wear cycle helmets (Boys snub uncool cycle helmets, June 19, 2003).

    Up until now the primary risks to teenage boys have been poor cycling skills, lack of conspicuity,
    failure to use lights and of course the usual car drivers failing to cede right of way. That all
    these primary causes of danger have now declined to the point that failure to wear helmets, which
    makes a statistically insignificant difference to injury rates, is now the primary concern - well,
    that is progress indeed.

    Quite how making helmets compulsory for under-16s will help is a bit unclear, though - 90% of child
    cycle accidents happen in play, generally on private land, so would not be covered by any
    legislation.

    One should of course be cautious in assessing statistics for cyclist head injuries - the category
    "head injury" covers any injury to the head or face, including those parts not covered by a lid.
    Studies have absolutely not shown that "at least 75 per cent of head injuries would be prevented if
    the cyclist were wearing a helmet," unless you believe that in those same studies the helmet was
    also responsible for a substantial reduction in lower limb injuries. These helmets can do marvellous
    things, of course.

    If the Road Safety Minister is reluctant to consider a law on cycle helmets because it would be
    "difficult to enforce," then he has some serious reading to do. The reason for opposing helmet
    legislation is that wherever it's been tried injury rates have stayed the same or risen, and cycling
    has reduced.

    If only people would focus on the primary issues, such as lack of a widely available accredited
    training scheme, the apparent invisibility of cyclists to drivers even when wearing fluorescent
    clothing, poor maintenance and so on - well, perhaps then we might see accidents reduced, instead of
    trying to enforce a controversial and unproven remedy after the fact.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  5. =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Up until now the primary risks to teenage boys have been poor cycling skills, lack of conspicuity,
    > failure to use lights and of course the usual car drivers failing to cede right of way. That all
    > these primary causes of danger have now declined to the point that failure to wear helmets, which
    > makes a statistically insignificant difference to injury rates, is now the primary concern - well,
    > that is progress indeed.

    I laughed. Nice one.

    =2D -dan

    =2D --=20

    http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources=20
    =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQE+8yVcHDK5ZnWQiRMRAr5qAJ9yXrg7dwsNHg4cSQDxRWFXDOX7qACfRgLX m1UujiBHvrdw5chW+n/gByg=3D
    =3DbfZn 2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
  6. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > The following article appeared in today's Times. There is a very small reward for
    > anyone spotting the similarities between this
    article
    > and the DfT's campaign about helmets. And I mean small!

    To validate the report to me they should list all the other circumstances that result in head
    injuries, for instance walking, running, playground apparatus, parents cars in RTAs, pratting about
    etc. Maybe adolescent males should wear helmets at all times. Maybe we all should, I'm forever
    banging my noggin but when I got knocked off my bike I landed on my arse so maybe full body armour
    should be compulsory for any activity not involving sofas or chairs and screens.

    Pete
     
  7. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:39:36 +0100 someone who may be "Richard Burton"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Why does anybody still believe anything those t*****rs say?

    Are they still getting large amounts of our money? If so then they can afford to mount various
    propaganda efforts.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...