Andrew Curran
 

I was at a debate today between Andrew Curran and John Adams. It was
quite interesting: I think Dr Curran might be a useful ally in the
road danger reduction cause.

As an interventionist medic he is really looking for ways that he can
effect a reduction in the numbers of injured children he sees. He was
very open to the idea of strict liability as a way of making a
significant step change for the better in this regard.
--
Guy

Andrew Curran
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

I was at a debate today between Andrew Curran and John Adams. It was
quite interesting: I think Dr Curran might be a useful ally in the
road danger reduction cause.

As an interventionist medic he is really looking for ways that he can
effect a reduction in the numbers of injured children he sees. He was
very open to the idea of strict liability as a way of making a
significant step change for the better in this regard.

This made the Radio Five news this morning, under the banner that the
College of Emergency Medicine want mandatory helmets for under-16s. No
mention of the debate or of how they reached this conclusion. There's
nothing on the CEM website, except the announcement of the debate in
the conference programme, which doesn't show up using their "search".



Mike
--
Mike Causer

Andrew Curran
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:30:48 +0100, Mike Causer
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

I was at a debate today between Andrew Curran and John Adams. It was
quite interesting: I think Dr Curran might be a useful ally in the
road danger reduction cause.

As an interventionist medic he is really looking for ways that he can
effect a reduction in the numbers of injured children he sees. He was
very open to the idea of strict liability as a way of making a
significant step change for the better in this regard.

This made the Radio Five news this morning, under the banner that the
College of Emergency Medicine want mandatory helmets for under-16s.


Perhaps they have been misinformed and they believe that they are
beneficial?

--
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

Andrew Curran
 

"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:30:48 +0100, Mike Causer
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

I was at a debate today between Andrew Curran and John Adams. It was
quite interesting: I think Dr Curran might be a useful ally in the
road danger reduction cause.

As an interventionist medic he is really looking for ways that he can
effect a reduction in the numbers of injured children he sees. He was
very open to the idea of strict liability as a way of making a
significant step change for the better in this regard.

This made the Radio Five news this morning, under the banner that the
College of Emergency Medicine want mandatory helmets for under-16s.


Perhaps they have been misinformed and they believe that they are
beneficial?


It does look like it.

Andrew Curran
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:30:48 +0100, Mike Causer
wrote:

This made the Radio Five news this morning, under the banner that the
College of Emergency Medicine want mandatory helmets for under-16s. No
mention of the debate or of how they reached this conclusion. There's
nothing on the CEM website, except the announcement of the debate in
the conference programme, which doesn't show up using their "search".

There were only about 40 people there, it was not a policy forum, it
was a debate arranged as a conference sideshow. No surprise that it's
been misrepresented, of course.

Andrew Curran
 

On 17 Sep, 20:40, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
I was at a debate today between Andrew Curran and John Adams. *It was
quite interesting: I think Dr Curran might be a useful ally in the
road danger reduction cause.

As an interventionist medic he is really looking for ways that he can
effect a reduction in the numbers of injured children he sees. *He was
very open to the idea of strict liability as a way of making a
significant step change for the better in this regard.
--
Guy

But if hes in favour of compulsory cycle helmets for children then
he'll be your enemy rather than your ally? Strict liability is a non
starter in this country anyway

Andrew Curran
 

Sir Jeremy wrote:

Strict liability is a non starter in this country anyway

AIUI other countries have moved towards strict liability, why do you
think the UK is different?

Andrew Curran
 

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
wrote:

But if hes in favour of compulsory cycle helmets for children then
he'll be your enemy rather than your ally? Strict liability is a non
starter in this country anyway

I don't think there's any need to draw battle lines and declare people
enemies. What he wants is for fewer children to be injured. We agree
on that. I pointed out to him that his proposed quick fix was only
going to affect a minority of a minority of a minority, and I think he
accepts that as well. If we can agree on a *better* action that we
can all support and which will have a wider and more profound impact,
then that's a good thing, surely?

Andrew Curran
 

On 19 Sep, 13:20, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy

wrote:
But if hes in favour of compulsory cycle helmets for children then
he'll be your enemy rather than your ally? Strict liability is a non
starter in this country anyway

I don't think there's any need to draw battle lines and declare people
enemies. *What he wants is for fewer children to be injured. *We agree
on that. *I pointed out to him that his proposed quick fix was only
going to affect a minority of a minority of a minority, and I think he
accepts that as well. *If we can agree on a *better* action that we
can all support and which will have a wider and more profound impact,
then that's a good thing, surely?

You sound almost reasonable.

Andrew Curran
 

Nick wrote:

Sir Jeremy wrote:

Strict liability is a non starter in this country anyway

AIUI other countries have moved towards strict liability, why do you
think the UK is different?

For a start, we've always had this odd preference for proper justice and for
not punishing the innocent. We all know that this has not always been adhered
to elsewhere.