Re: Letter to BMJ- child obesity and cycle lanes.



J

John Clayton

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6e802366-532b-44dc-aef5-6a9ff2473d4d@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
We know 20mph zones reduce accidents.

We no there is no evidence of migration of accidents.

We know 20mph zones see massively reduced accidents.


Our small town (Horbury, West Yorkshire) has a 20 mph limit, soon to be
enlarged in diameter.
Cars often / continually speed through it, cars rarely stop at the 4 zebra
crossings. Sometimes pedestrians get injured, even killed.
Horbury has several food takeaways, one cash machine. Cars normally park on
/ near zebras, on zigzags. Cars often overtake in the main street.
These offences occur ever day, every night. To my knowledge no-one has ever
been prosecuted for any of these unacceptable acts.


What more evidence do we need?

The letter:

Abstract of letter to BMJ by Nicole Lavery, Community Advisor:

"How many studies into obesity does it take to build one cycle path
for children to get to school on? I believe we have now reached
saturation point as to how many studies and articles it takes to
convince us that we are too fat as a nation.1 2 What good does it do
to advise people that they need to walk/cycle/swim when the
infrastructure is doing its best to prevent exactly this?

Given all the suggested health assessments, dietitians’ advice,
government guidelines, and supermarket labels, there is something
missing: action to force planners, developers, councils, and local
authorities to end totally unsustainable, fat making practices. These
practices include building roads without cycle lanes (or trying to get
away with painting a thin white line on a 70 mph road and declaring it
a cycle path) and putting up a nice little "walk to health" road sign
along a traffic jammed . ."


End quote.

Parents are scared of paedos (8 children a year murdered be abductors)
and so drive their kids to school (ten children a day killed or
seriously injured on the roads).

Why are we wasting time sticking labels on food and banning
confectionary machines from schools when the answer's in front of our
noses?


Because people / government's are not sufficiciently / don't want to be
educated. the car is the easy / lazy option. Every day I see incredibly
fat people. People with incredible dimensions I never, ever saw in my
youth. People who would choke at the mere prospect of walking or riding a
bike.
We need education. Of more benefit would be a really big fuel shortage, or
poverty.
None of which is likely to happen. So we'll just have to put up with the
noise and aggravation that motors generate.

John "just had a nice day out spoilt by cars" clayton
 
In article <[email protected]>, John Clayton
[email protected] says...

> We need education. Of more benefit would be a really big fuel shortage, or
> poverty.
>

Poverty isn't good, because it tends to lead to poor diet and
inactivity.


(P.S. You need to fix the quoting in your news client.)
 
John Clayton wrote:
>
> Because people / government's are not sufficiciently / don't want to be
> educated.


By "educated", are you sure you don't mean "brainwashed".

> the car is the easy / lazy option.


If someone wants to use the easy/lazy, option what right have we to deny
them it. Do you (or you're partner or you're mother) wash your clothes
against a rock in the river, or by using the easy/lazy option?

> Every day I see incredibly
> fat people. People with incredible dimensions I never, ever saw in my
> youth. People who would choke at the mere prospect of walking or riding a
> bike.


Their choice. Many would blame television for our increasingly sedate
lifestyles.

> We need education.


Possibly.

> Of more benefit would be a really big fuel shortage, or
> poverty.


You'd like to see our economy suffer, and our standard of living
diminished would you.

> None of which is likely to happen.


Let's hope.

> So we'll just have to put up with the
> noise and aggravation that motors generate.


A small price to pay for the *huge* benefits and advantages they have
brought us over the last century, or so.

> John "just had a nice day out spoilt by cars" clayton


What were you doing, and couldn't you have done it somewhere else? I
would suggest that most people who "had a nice day out" in the UK today,
were only able to have it /because/ to the car.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
> John Clayton wrote:
>>
>> Because people / government's are not sufficiciently / don't want to
>> be educated.

>
> By "educated", are you sure you don't mean "brainwashed".
>
>> the car is the easy / lazy option.

>
> If someone wants to use the easy/lazy, option what right have we to deny
> them it. Do you (or you're partner or you're mother) wash your clothes


Whoops! Excuse my "typos". It wouldn't have seemed so embarrassing if
we weren't discussing education :-(

--
Matt B