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

[burtthebike]

Guy,

many thanks for posting this pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.

Just scanned through it and the first thing I came across was the quote
about STATS 19 and HES figures, and it claims that 8% of seriously injured
in the former were cyclists, and 17% of the latter. Both of these seem
incredibly high, and there is no differentiation between on or off road, but
AIUI the STATS 19 are likely to be exclusively or mainly on road.

It later goes on to explain that "2,462 cyclists were killed or seriously
injured in road crashes". So factoring up from the STATS 19 percentage,
this gives a figure of 30,775 total killed or seriously injured from all
causes. Is that about right?

So massive increases in helmet-wearing appear to have considerably increased
the risk of death or serious injury, or at best, have not reduced those
risks. [irony on] Success!! [irony off]

I have to say that I'm increasingly concerned that otherwise intelligent,
rational people seem to be obsessed by a drive to force cycle helmets on the
general population. I would have thought there should perhaps be a medical
term for this obsession? Suggestions below please.

I'll start off with the obvious; helmet-obsessives, helmet-maniacs,
helmet-fools...........

 

[Peter Clinch]

burtthebike wrote:

> I'll start off with the obvious; helmet-obsessives, helmet-maniacs,
> helmet-fools...........

tossers? ;-/

"Cars presented the most substantial risks to cyclists /in all types of
setting/" (my italics). Would that be including off-road where there
aren't any cars then? Shows just how much care went into this thing...

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/