Re: New BMA briefing paper. WARNING: Long, contains H word.



M

Martin Dann

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Following previous research by the Board of Science on
> cycling, the BMA established specific policy at its 2006 annual
> representative meeting that the Association promotes cycling as a
> safe, healthy and sustainable alternative to car use.


So why does it, and BeHIT continually promote cycling as unsafe, with
their insistence that we should all wear MFHs.

> Safe cycling
> Cycling statistics
> The proportion of people travelling by cycle has fallen over the
> past 25 years in England. [Reference 1]


I am sure I have read that there has been an increase in cycling in the
last five-ten years. Post 7/7 in London, and noticeably in Bristol in
the last two years.



> As will be discussed later,
> cycle helmets do not prevent all types of injury or death; they play
> a significant role in reducing head injuries. They are most
> effective at low impact speeds (approximately 13 mph or less), such
> as when a cyclist falls from a cycle without the involvement of
> other vehicles. [Reference 9]


I think we all know that one.

>
> advertising standards officials should ensure that the
> public are protected against misleading safety claims from
> manufacturers


Now that is good, perhaps beHIT could stop their misleading safety claims.


> cycle manufacturers and retailers should consider supplying
> a free cycle helmet (or helmet voucher) with every bike sold


There is no such thing as a free lunch. A free helmet will either push
up the price of the bike, or reduce the quality of the components (e.g.
the already cheap brakes).

> www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080122/text/80122w0007.htm#08012323000031.


> Charles' story
> Charles, a senior orthopaedic consultant, fell from his bike
> following a collision with a car on an A-road. He was cycling off a
> roundabout onto a dual carriageway at just under 20 mph when the
> crash occurred. He suffered a grazed and fractured shoulder, grazing
> to the right side of his head and cuts to his chin. He strongly
> believes that the cycle helmet he was wearing saved him from
> sustaining more severe injury to his head.


Would he have hit his head if he was not wearing a MFH?
Does he understand basic physics? which I thought Doctors had to know.

20mph is 2.4 times the KE of a 13 mph collision, plus there was a car
involved. The helmet would simply have failed in this case. Also the KE
of the helmet is similar to the max. energy it can absorb.


> Cycle helmets perform three functions. Firstly they reduce the
> deceleration of the skull and hence the brain by managing impacts.
> This is achieved by crushing the soft material contained within a
> helmet. Secondly a helmet acts by spreading the area of an impact.
> As it is impacted, the expanded polystyrene shell of the helmet
> dissipates the energy over a rapidly increasing area like a cone.
> This prevents forces from being localized to one concentrated small
> area. Finally a helmet plays a vital role by preventing direct
> contact between the skull and the impacting object.


This ignores rotational injuries, and the fact that the skull already
does much more of this than a MFH will

> Simon's story
> Simon, in an effort to get fit for his 40th birthday, started a
> regular regime of cycling in the evening. Like many people, he
> didn't wear a cycle helmet because he thought they looked stupid. On
> one occasion, for reasons unknown, he blacked out and fell from his
> bicycle, hitting his head on the pavement as he fell.


So why did he just suddenly black out whilst riding a bike?
If he had sudden brain damage for no apparent reason causing a black
out, could this have caused the rest of his symptoms.

> "I have seen - in my practice and when working in A/E -
> quite a number of serious head injuries from children falling off
> bicycles. I have also seen a number of children who wore helmets who
> only suffered minor injury. I am convinced that helmets reduce
> injury."


Someone I work with is convinced that the world is flat.


>
>
> Effectiveness of helmets at reducing injuries
> As part of its policy to improve the safety of cyclists, the DfT
> conducted an independent critique of evidence on the efficacy of
> cycle helmets. [Reference 14] It concludes that:


Is this the one that was discussed recently and show to be a pile of
smelly stuff?


> Samuel's Story
> Seven year old Samuel was out cycling near his home when he collided
> with a car. The cycle helmet Samuel was wearing almost split in two
> as a result of the impact. While Samuel did suffer cuts and bruises
> he did not suffer any serious injuries to the head.


So he collided with a car (outside of the design specs. of the helmet).
The helmet then catastrophically failed, providing no protection whatever.


> McDermott 1993 Thompson 1996a Cochrane review of five studies To
> determine if cycle helmets reduce head, brain and facial injury for
> cyclists of all ages in event of a crash or fall Systematic
> review Incidence of head injuries
> Incidence of facial injuries
> Protective effect of helmet Helmets reduce the risk of head
> injury by 85%, brain injury by 88% and severe brain injury by 75%.
> Helmets provide equal level of protection from cars (69%) compared
> to other causes (65%)



Wow 85-88%, now where I heard that one before. I wish I had been wearing
a cycle helmet last year when I broke my leg.


I will snip the rest, as it is clearly not worth reading after quoting
the above statistic.
As you say, it is ironic that the idiot wants to stop misleading safety
claims, yet quotes the 88% stat.
 
D

Daniel Barlow

Guest
Martin Dann wrote:

>> advertising standards officials should ensure that the
>> public are protected against misleading safety claims from
>> manufacturers

>
> Now that is good, perhaps beHIT could stop their misleading safety claims.


I thought that at first, but the key is they're not manufacturers
(unless "manufacturers of spin" are included ...


-dan
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>
>>> advertising standards officials should ensure that the
>>> public are protected against misleading safety claims from
>>> manufacturers

>>
>> Now that is good, perhaps beHIT could stop their misleading safety
>> claims.

>
> I thought that at first, but the key is they're not manufacturers
> (unless "manufacturers of spin" are included ...


It's nothing you can really get them with because they are indeed not
manufacturers, but it does demonstrate (as if you didn't know
already...) that they're as hypocritical a bunch of <mumble> as you'll
find anywhere.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 

Similar threads