The BHIT Bill: What Next

[James Hodson]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:02:50 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, this is serious. We genuinely could end up with a helmet law if we are not careful.

Guy

What happened to your page with all those graphs? I can't find it.

James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:40:08 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Excellent but you forgot to say the figure of 50 deaths in the leaflet is also wrong by a factor
>four (IIRC)

Because I am not entirely confident it is. There are several figures in circulation: 10, 25 and 50
spring to mind. Some include only road fatalities, some include offroad. The road fatality rate per
unit crash is higher - about half of fatalities from about 10% of crashes, if memory serves.

I did a Google and got all three! If anyone can clarify which is what and why I would be most
grateful. I am a bear of very little brain, it seems.

Incidentally, the above indicates to me that helmets are not the deciding factor in determinign
fatality, but that the size and speed of the thing which which contact is made may well be. Is that
a supportable conclusion?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Zog The Undenia]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>>It's EDM 1783 BTW.

> Nope. That was last year. This is an actual Bill, which could become law.

Thanks for the correction. I got it right in my e-mail to my MP.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:17:45 -0000, "Phil Bixby"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Excellent stuff Mike - let me know what response you get and I'll do likewise.

Phil, the "Mike" one (to Dorrell?) is not available on my news server. Could you repost or email to
guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net please?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:49:04 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Notice that I have been calling them BeHIT for ages - you're slow off the mark, Bill ;-)

>Due to my poor typing skills I've been hitting the "s" key instead of the "e" in that ;-)

Anyone for a Mob outside Parliament on 23 April? I quite fancy chanting "Be-Hit Bull-****!" as Eric
Martlew walks in...

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:22:22 +0000, James Hodson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What happened to your page with all those graphs? I can't find it.

Which one? Injury levels?

<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/One_In_Three>

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Further thoughts on levels of risk.

Asuming BHIT are right and 50 children die every year due to cycling-related head injuries, the ONS
says that there are 11.7 million children in the UK. Sustrans state that "most children" own
bicycles - that means at least 50%, so the annual probability of fatality would seem to me to be no
more than .0004%

Not quite such a pressing problme after all, perhaps.

I've asked Sustrans if they have a more accurate figure.

Note: this takes no account of exposure. Some children, like mine, will be cyclingon the road from
an early age, others will be occasional park cyclists only. On the other hand BHIT have not
advanced any other measure of exposure, so I feel justified in using this one

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> People of URC:
>
> Eric Martlew's bill is to have its second reading on April 23. The text
is
> not yet available, but it is being drafted by BHIT so expect the worst.
>
> The Minister designated to respond, David Jamieson, is apparently in two minds about whether to
> support the Bill. If he does it may well succeed. Up to half of all private bills pass in some
> sessions. Complacency would
be
> most unwise.
>
> Contentious private bills, of course, rarely pass. The problem is that
this
> bill is not likely to be seen as contentious by many MPs: our job, as I
see
> it, is to ensure that they realise the full implications of any such
measure
> being passed into law.
>
> I've already written to my MP and to the MP in whose constituency my
office
> and the school of which I am a Governor both lie, one Boris Johnson. I
will
> also be writing to Mr Jamieson. Reading's other MP, Martin Salter, is a patron of BHIT.
>
> My MP is giving me information about the progress of the bill which I will continue to pass on.
>
>
> This is a call to action.
>
> Those of you who have not yet written to your MP, please do. The time for action is NOW - MPs have
> a lot of correspondence and I suggest that we should get in early, get replies and challenge those
> replies which are unsatisfactory.
>
> Those of you who have figures, insights, data which are relevant to this issue, I would be pleased
> to hear from you. I have combed Google and <http://www.cyclehelmets.org> but any new data is
> appreciated.
>
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
>
> WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Marc]

Phil Bixby <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yup, email to local MP (Hugh Bayley here in York) sent today; warning heeded.
>
> Text pasted below

Could I please borrow that text ( with the personal details altered) to send to my MP? You have
written it far better than I would have.

--
Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
and dealers.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> >Excellent but you forgot to say the figure of 50 deaths in the leaflet is
also
> >wrong by a factor four (IIRC)
>
> Because I am not entirely confident it is. There are several figures in circulation: 10, 25 and 50
> spring to mind. Some include only road fatalities, some include offroad. The road fatality rate
> per unit crash is higher - about half of fatalities from about 10% of crashes, if memory serves.
>
> I did a Google and got all three! If anyone can clarify which is what and why I would be most
> grateful. I am a bear of very little brain, it seems.
>
> Incidentally, the above indicates to me that helmets are not the deciding factor in determinign
> fatality, but that the size and speed of the thing which which contact is made may well be. Is
> that a supportable conclusion?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D4031.xls for the figures you're after.
Don't know where you got 10 from, hopefully for 2002 figures (the link only displays 1991-2001). The
first two quoted figures are right. 50 was the toll in 1991, 25 in 2001. Given the strong downward
trend I would expect an even lower amount for 2002 and 2003. Hurrah! It would appear that BHIT have
conducted a half-arsed internet search and picked the highest (and oldest) figure on the chart. For
adults it is an uncharacteristic high of 192 in 1991 and 113 in 2001. There was a low of 98 in 2000.

Interestingly, compare the figures for child pedestrians to child cyclists - children walking are
more likely to be seriously injured and more likely to be killed when they have an accident! To be
fair, note the use of "when they have an accident - I haven't compared figures for exposure yet.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6536.xls for rates per billion
passenger kilometres. Strangely, for rail it doesn't include "train accidents and accidents
occuring through movement of railway vehicles". I'm having deep problems trying to work out what it
does include!

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D4031.xls for
the

Cool, thanks.

> Interestingly, compare the figures for child pedestrians to child
cyclists -
> children walking are more likely to be seriously injured and more likely
to be
> killed when they have an accident!

Indeed. That possibly reflects the likelihood of their accidents involving cars - some child
cyclists simply fall off, after all.

> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6536.xls for
rates
> per billion passenger kilometres. Strangely, for rail it doesn't include
"train
> accidents and accidents occuring through movement of railway vehicles".
I'm
> having deep problems trying to work out what it does include!

You have to be careful with that as the figures for exposure are notoriously flaky for cycling and
walking in particular. Most rail fatalities are, IIRC, suicides.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

One further thought: the figures quoted are for road fatalities. No mention of all fatalities. The
coincidence of the number 50 may be just that: possibly 25 kids died falling off their bikes in
offroad play.

Which suggests that, given the ratio 9:1 for offroad to road, helmets are not the thing we need
to investigate. The major reason kids die is something to do with roads, not somethign to do
with helmets.

I wonder what that might be?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Pk]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6536.xls for rates per billion
> passenger kilometres. Strangely, for rail it doesn't include "train accidents and accidents
> occuring through movement of railway vehicles". I'm having deep problems trying to work out what
> it does include!

I think you misread what it says:

"3 Financial years. Includes train accidents and accidents occurring through movement of railway
vehicles."

Presumbably it means electrocutions and falling from briges etc are excluded?

pk

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I think you misread what it says:

d'oh, yes. Includes not excludes. Thanks for pointing hat out - I'd been scratching my head for the
last couple of hours!

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
PK <[email protected]> typed:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6536.xls for rates per billion
>> passenger kilometres. Strangely, for rail it doesn't include "train accidents and accidents
>> occuring through movement of railway vehicles". I'm having deep problems trying to work out what
>> it does include!
>
>
> I think you misread what it says:
>
> "3 Financial years. Includes train accidents and accidents occurring through movement of railway
> vehicles."
>
> Presumbably it means electrocutions and falling from briges etc are excluded?
>
Two fatalities from falling down stairs at stations, as Private Eye noted when criticising the no
expense spared health & safety culture at Railtrack, which insisted on spending £500 000 putting in
bridges at stations where there is one train every 4 hours.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> typed:
> One further thought: the figures quoted are for road fatalities. No mention of all fatalities. The
> coincidence of the number 50 may be just that: possibly 25 kids died falling off their bikes in
> offroad play.
>
> Which suggests that, given the ratio 9:1 for offroad to road, helmets are not the thing we need to
> investigate. The major reason kids die is something to do with roads, not somethign to do with
> helmets.
>
> I wonder what that might be?

Methinks we need to resurface all the roads with that stuff they make playgrounds out of

 

[Johnb]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
> <[email protected]> typed:
> >
> > Which suggests that, given the ratio 9:1 for offroad to road, helmets are not the thing we need
> > to investigate. The major reason kids die is something to do with roads, not somethign to do
> > with helmets.
> >
> > I wonder what that might be?
>
> Methinks we need to resurface all the roads with that stuff they make playgrounds out of

What, chewing gum and crisp packets?

John B

 

[James Hodson]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:19:18 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>What happened to your page with all those graphs? I can't find it.
>
>Which one? Injury levels?
>
><http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/One_In_Three>

That's the one.

Ta James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.

 

[Mike Gayler]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writed in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:17:45 -0000, "Phil Bixby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Excellent stuff Mike - let me know what response you get and I'll do likewise.
>
> Phil, the "Mike" one (to Dorrell?) is not available on my news server. Could you repost or email
> to guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net please?
>
Response from Stephen Dorrell today (the odd grammar is his not mine!): "Thank you for your
letter.... I was interested in your argument yo aduce and sympathetic to the proposition that we
should base our decision on the facts rather than propaganda. My ownmind is open on this issue and I
am therefore in contact with David Jamieson, the Minister responsible for road safety, to seek a
response to the points you make. I will write again when I am in a position to do so"