|
|
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper. Full details can be found at: http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promoti...ing.jsp?page=1 (Successive pages are accessed by clicking the links eg Cycle Helmets on the LHS) The BMA : Promoting safe cycling 17 March 2008 Introduction The British Medical Association (BMA) has undertaken substantial work in relation to transport and health in the past including accident prevention and reduction, environmental and health impacts of transport, studies on drink and drug driving and seat belt legislation. 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. Doctors have an interest in cycling for two key reasons: 1. The important role cycling has in the promotion of individuals’ and the nation’s health 2. The need for safe cycling in order to prevent cycle related injury Health promotion The BMA believes that cycling has many advantages to the individual in terms of improved health and mobility, as well as to society; it is a sustainable form of transport which has a minimal impact upon the environment. It is the least polluting way of traveling after walking; cycles do not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Cycles also require fewer resources to manufacture and maintain compared to other modes of transport. While a number of studies demonstrate the positive effect of cycling on lifespan, health and general well being, the majority of this research is indirect and based on the findings that moderate intensity physical activity of any kind produces health benefits. It is the fact that cycling is a form of exercise which confers these positive effects. Cycle helmets In the UK individuals are not currently legally required to wear a cycle helmet. There is much controversy on whether cycle helmet wearing should be compulsory. A great deal of the controversy relates to whether cycle helmets reduce injuries, if so what type of injuries they reduce and further whether cycle helmet legislation discourages cycling. The BMA, as a part of its policy to improve safe cycling supports compulsory wearing of cycle helmets when cycling for children and adults. The Association wants to see an increase in voluntary use prior to the introduction of cycle helmet legislation and supports initiatives that so increase such use. There is extensive literature that reviews the case for and against the wearing of cycle helmets. The most reliable research comes from Cochrane Reviews which are based on the best available information about healthcare interventions. They explore the evidence for and against the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatments (medications, surgery, education, etc) in specific circumstances. This briefing contains an overview of the available evidence. Rationale Cycle helmets aim to reduce the risk of serious injury caused by impacts to the head. Injuries to the head generally take two forms; skull fractures and brain injuries. While skull fractures can heal, injuries to the brain, unlike those to the rest of the body, generally do not and may sometimes have long-term consequences. Though not always visible and sometimes seemingly minor, brain injury is complex. It can cause physical, cognitive, social and vocational changes that affect an individual for a variable time period. In many cases recovery becomes a lifelong process of adjustments and accommodation for the individual and those caring for them. Depending on the extent and the location of the injury, impairments caused by a brain injury can vary widely. Among the most common impairments are difficulties with memory, mood and concentration. Others include significant deficits in organisational and reasoning skills, learning, cognitive and executive functions. Function 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. Conclusion Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets. They have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur. This does not apply to fatal accidents but in such instances the force of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection would fail. As has been illustrated by the case studies, the consequences of traumatic brain injury are significant not only to the individual involved, but to their families and to society as a whole. BMA members, in particular accident and emergency staff see at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have. Therefore, as a part of a range of measures to improve cycling safety, the BMA calls for cycle helmet wearing to be made compulsory. The Association recognises that voluntary helmet wearing should increase before the law is enacted. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:45:07 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100 the perfect time to write: Nothing of any consequence removed. Nurse! she's out again! What a pity she forgot to mention the lies they had to remove after publication, and the debate where a former medical student pretended that a human skull is equivalent to a watermelon. But she probably doesn't know about that - it is, after all, in conflict with her cherished beliefs, so the only proper response is to stick her fingers in her ears, chant "laa laa I'm not listening" and then continue to spout ignorant twaddle as she has right from the word go. And anyway, the details would cause the link to wrap, and we all know that the entire Internet is one huge conspiracy to make judith look stupid when she unwraps links. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:24:34 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:45:07 +0100, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100 the perfect time to write: Nothing of any consequence removed. Nurse! she's out again! What a pity she forgot to mention the lies they had to remove after publication, and the debate where a former medical student pretended that a human skull is equivalent to a watermelon. But she probably doesn't know about that - it is, after all, in conflict with her cherished beliefs, so the only proper response is to stick her fingers in her ears, chant "laa laa I'm not listening" and then continue to spout ignorant twaddle as she has right from the word go. And anyway, the details would cause the link to wrap, and we all know that the entire Internet is one huge conspiracy to make judith look stupid when she unwraps links. Guy I am sorry to publicise up to date information on the BMA - I assume that you would rather still go by old stuff. I see that you are still relying on information from 4 years ago - never one to keep abreast of developments were you? However, I guess that you will agree that it's good that such an august professional body supports helmets and has very clearly stated this fact. Please do not lie - there was never pretence by anyone that a human skull is equivalent to a water melon. There was no water melon dropped on the floor. What the delegate actually said was: "I was thinking of dropping this, it's a water melon, on the floor, to show how effective a helmet is but health and safety suggested that if the melon does splatter I've got problems..." This is where people realise that you are actually lying much of the time. You know, and I know that there was never any such pretence - but that does not stop your further lies and deceit does it. Have you asked a small group of kids for their view on cycle helmets recently so that BHRF can claim it as serious research again? How many do you need to make the research valid - is it 5 or will 4 suffice? -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I pointed out the web page He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for years. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100 the perfect time to write: Nothing of any consequence removed. Nurse! she's out again! Robert...! Robert Henderson...! Is that you? |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On 18 Apr, 20:53, wrote:
There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper. Full details can be found at:http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promoti.../promotingsafe... Nothing, useless, no investigation, no review, no conclusion, zippo. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... Newsgroup may contain nuts. Brilliant! |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
wrote: On 18 Apr, 20:53, wrote: There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper. Full details can be found at:http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promoti.../promotingsafe... Nothing, useless, no investigation, no review, no conclusion, zippo. "No conclusion"? Reading skills not what they should be? Conclusion Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets. They have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur. This does not apply to fatal accidents but in such instances the force of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection would fail. As has been illustrated by the case studies, the consequences of traumatic brain injury are significant not only to the individual involved, but to their families and to society as a whole. BMA members, in particular accident and emergency staff see at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have. Therefore, as a part of a range of measures to improve cycling safety, the BMA calls for cycle helmet wearing to be made compulsory. The Association recognises that voluntary helmet wearing should increase before the law is enacted. -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100 the perfect time to write: Nothing of any consequence removed. Nurse! she's out again! We can't have anything about cycle helmets saving injuries published, can we? -- Tony the Dragon |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On 19 Apr, 12:14, Judith Smith wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate wrote: On 18 Apr, 20:53, wrote: There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper. Full details can be found at:http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promoti.../promotingsafe... Nothing, useless, no investigation, no review, no conclusion, zippo. "No conclusion"? Reading skills not what they should be? could not get access, ok now. Well maybe later. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
wrote in message ... There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
Simon Mason wrote:
wrote in message ... There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. IIRC wasn't there a recent admission that the "safe" numbers of alcohol units was just plucked out of the air, because it sounded about right? Why do people keep listening the these body technicians and mistake their declarations for science? |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Marc" wrote in message The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. IIRC wasn't there a recent admission that the "safe" numbers of alcohol units was just plucked out of the air, because it sounded about right? Why do people keep listening the these body technicians and mistake their declarations for science? Because some people are in awe of someone who has a few letters after their name, instead of using their own brain. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:27:06 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote: wrote in message .. . There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. I am sure you are probably right - however I have not seen that - can you give a reference please? -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:35:02 +0100, Marc
wrote: Simon Mason wrote: wrote in message ... There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA) policy of Promoting Safe Cycling. The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. IIRC wasn't there a recent admission that the "safe" numbers of alcohol units was just plucked out of the air, because it sounded about right? Why do people keep listening the these body technicians and mistake their declarations for science? Perhaps because they have relevant training and qualifications - just like the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation - oh - sorry I got that wrong - they are just a bunch of charlatans. -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Judith Smith" wrote in message ... The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. I am sure you are probably right - however I have not seen that - can you give a reference please? Sure http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/Iop/PRT/sensible.htm The sensible drinking message set out in the Lord President's Report on Alcohol Misuse in 1991 was adopted by the Health of the Nation in 1992. This promoted the simple message that drinking less than 21 units of alcohol per week for men and 14 units for women was unlikely to damage health. The targets set were a reduction in the percentage of men drinking more than 21 units per week from 28% in 1990 to 18% in 2005 and of women drinking more than 14 units per week from 11% in 1990 to 7% in 2005. Two years later despite a lack of progress towards these targets, and in response to a parliamentary question in April 1994, the Government established an inter-departmental working group. Its purpose was to review the sensible drinking message in light of possible evidence for a cardiovascular protective effect afforded by alcohol. Their deliberations produced the 1995 report entitled 'Sensible Drinking'. In the report they concluded that daily benchmarks could help individuals decide how much to drink on single occasions and therefore enable them to avoid episodes of intoxication with their attendant health and social risks. Their advice being that the health benefit from drinking related to men aged over 40 and that the major part of this benefit could be obtained at levels as low as one unit a day, with the maximum health advantage lying between 1 and 2 units a day. The report went on to state that "regular consumption of between 3 and 4 units a day by men of all ages will not accrue significant health risk and consistently drinking 4 or more units a day is not advised as a sensible drinking level because of the progressive health risk it carries". As regards females, the health benefit from drinking related to postmenopausal women with the major part of this benefit being obtained at levels as low as one unit a day, the maximum health advantage lying between 1 and 2 units a day. The report stated that "regular consumption of between 2 and 3 units a day by women of all ages will not accrue any significant health risk and consistently drinking 3 or more units a day is not advised as a sensible drinking level because of the progressive health risk it carries". The significance of the additional 'any' in the recommendation for women is not clear and has not received any specific comment. In effect this raised the sensible drinking limits to a maximum of almost 28 units per week for men and almost 21 units per week for women. These new benchmarks represented a 50% rise on the previous upper limit for women and a 33% increase for men. In April 1995 the BMA (British Medical Association) responded with the recommendation that the sensible drinking limits of 21 units per week for men and 14 units per week for women should not be relaxed, a position with which the royal colleges of physicians, psychiatrists, and general practitioners concur. The conflicting reports concerning sensible drinking in Britain illustrate that there is no consensus on what is a sensible level of alcohol consumption, and as a result, there is an inconsistent and confused public health message. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Promote Cycle Helmet Use
Misleading subjectline corrected
|
The BMA Promote Cycle Helmet Use to make Cycling Safer
On Apr 19, 2:12*pm, "OG" wrote:
Misleading subjectline corrected Misleading subjectline corrected Francis |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:11:26 +0100,
Simon Mason wrote: "Judith Smith" wrote in message ... The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. I am sure you are probably right - however I have not seen that - can you give a reference please? Sure http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/Iop/PRT/sensible.htm The sensible drinking message set out in the Lord President's Report on Alcohol Misuse in 1991 was adopted by the Health of the Nation in 1992. The initial figure was plucked out of the air in 1987 due to "a feeling that you had to say something" according to Richard Smith a member of Royal College of Physicians who was on the committee that came up with the number. Googling alcohol "plucked out of the air" gets lots of newspaper columns on this. -- Andy Leighton = "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Andy Leighton" wrote in message The initial figure was plucked out of the air in 1987 due to "a feeling that you had to say something" according to Richard Smith a member of Royal College of Physicians who was on the committee that came up with the number. Googling alcohol "plucked out of the air" gets lots of newspaper columns on this. Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die very soon! -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis
wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:27:06 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote: The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well. One of the more interesting points about this particular piece of work is that it is deliberately based only on case-control studies, with all conflicting evidence excluded. If they had adopted this policy in respect of HRT and coronary heart disease then they would be advising that HRT prevents heart disease. Luckily they investigated the conflicting evidence and found that all the case-control studies had similar confounding factors, leading to a conclusion which was wrong in both magnitude and sign: the risk is actually slightly /increased/. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
Simon Mason wrote:
"Andy Leighton" wrote in message The initial figure was plucked out of the air in 1987 due to "a feeling that you had to say something" according to Richard Smith a member of Royal College of Physicians who was on the committee that came up with the number. Googling alcohol "plucked out of the air" gets lots of newspaper columns on this. Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die very soon! Blimey, I couldn't do even a quarter of that and be a reasonable tester too. I'm even more impressed (sort of!). Roger Thorpe |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much attention to body technicians? If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor, not a panel beater. If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not a Queen Mary driver Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together? |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die very soon! Blimey, I couldn't do even a quarter of that and be a reasonable tester too. I'm even more impressed (sort of!). Well, it's not something to boast about really! I never touch wine or spirits and can get on the road every day at 6-00am, so it doesn't do me much harm. Come to think of it, I've cut down a lot. In my 20's I'd have 10 pints of beer a day (3 at dinner) and now I might have 5-6 every evening, so I've slowed down in my old age. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed They are going to follow Chapman. -- Tony the Dragon |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:31:46 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote: "Andy Leighton" wrote in message The initial figure was plucked out of the air in 1987 due to "a feeling that you had to say something" according to Richard Smith a member of Royal College of Physicians who was on the committee that came up with the number. Googling alcohol "plucked out of the air" gets lots of newspaper columns on this. Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die very soon! How do you make up this 100/120 units a week - if you don't mind me asking? -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
Tony Dragon wrote:
Sir Jeremy wrote: On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed They are going to follow Chapman. Is his advice cheaper? |
The BMA Promote Cycle Helmet Use
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:12:13 +0100, "OG"
wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected That was very clever - does it serve a purpose? What's OG - own goal? -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:37:14 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Gu Well done Guy - very mature. Excellent- I just love it when the children have to throw their toys out of the pram. Have you any suggestions for the next clarification? -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I pointed out the web page He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for years. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Judith Smith" wrote in message Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die very soon! How do you make up this 100/120 units a week - if you don't mind me asking? It would be nearer 100 units in a normal week. In an evening, I might have 5 x 440 ml cans of 1.9 units and 2 x 440 ml cans of 2.1 units which is 13.7 units. I then go to bed at 9-00 pm to get up at 5-30 am. I don't get dehydrated as the stuff is 96% water anyway. In a week, that is nearly 96 units. If I am not at work the next day, I may have a couple more which would take the total over 100 units. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
Marc wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote: Sir Jeremy wrote: On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed They are going to follow Chapman. Is his advice cheaper? He gives it free to this NG. -- Tony the Dragon |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:09:44 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote: "Roger Thorpe" wrote in message Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die very soon! Blimey, I couldn't do even a quarter of that and be a reasonable tester too. I'm even more impressed (sort of!). Well, it's not something to boast about really! I never touch wine or spirits and can get on the road every day at 6-00am, so it doesn't do me much harm. Come to think of it, I've cut down a lot. In my 20's I'd have 10 pints of beer a day (3 at dinner) and now I might have 5-6 every evening, so I've slowed down in my old age. So BP (if it was them) didn't mind you being drunk at work? -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Judith Smith" wrote in message ... Well, it's not something to boast about really! I never touch wine or spirits and can get on the road every day at 6-00am, so it doesn't do me much harm. Come to think of it, I've cut down a lot. In my 20's I'd have 10 pints of beer a day (3 at dinner) and now I might have 5-6 every evening, so I've slowed down in my old age. So BP (if it was them) didn't mind you being drunk at work? I worked for Croda then. It was the 1970's and everyone went out for drinks at dinner, it was considered normal. Nowadays, we have random blood checks for drugs and alcohol at work. I never drink during the day now anyway, even on my days off. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc
wrote: And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much attention to body technicians? If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. This is essentially what they are doing, much to the irritation of the "cycle safety=helmets" mob. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:15:16 +0100, Marc
wrote: Tony Dragon wrote: Sir Jeremy wrote: On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Ditto :-) Guy --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed They are going to follow Chapman. Is his advice cheaper? Chapman? Surely you meant cheap-and-nasty: "inexpensive but with the disadvantage of being unsuitable to one's purposes" -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:27:28 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote: We can't have anything about cycle helmets saving injuries published, can we? Sure we can as long as it makes the point that helmet use is not correlated with cycle safety in any cyclist population ever studied. From the BMA pages: * publicity and education campaigns in order to raise drivers' awareness of more vulnerable road-users, including cyclists * the creation of a safer cycling environment (eg improving cycle routes) * reductions in vehicle speeds and traffic volume in urban areas * the provision of cycling training for all children * recognizing road safety, including cycling proficiency education, as part of the curriculum for all school children. This should include basic cycle maintenance, and safety precautions (eg lights, reflective clothing), information on the health benefits of cycling, as well as encouraging cycle helmet use * ensuring the correct fitting of cycle helmets as poorly fitted helmets are less effective * advertising standards officials should ensure that the public are protected against misleading safety claims from manufacturers * cycle manufacturers and retailers should consider supplying a free cycle helmet (or helmet voucher) with every bike sold * helmet costs should be reduced substantially. (In the UK helmets are free of value added tax) So, the focus is mainly helmets despite the fact that there is no cyclist population which has ever demonstrated improved safety from increased levels of helmet use, and helmet use is lowest in those countries where cycling is safest. This reminds me, though, of a project I worked on just out of university. The Boss of an abrasives manufacturer (let's call it the Wobbly Wheel Company, as everyone there did) wanted us to design a really clever all-singing all-dancing balance testing system to check green state wheels before curing and reduce balance failures and rejection. Fair enough, you say. So as the first step we correlated balance problems against other factors and found that - guess what? - they were worst in the morning when the mix was left to normalise for only about half an hour, and had stabilised by evening when the normalising time was up to the recommended two hours. We also found that it was much worse on humid days, and was strongly dependent on temperature. So we recommended that he enclose and air condition the mixing bay and start the mixing crew two hours before the main shift. What was the response? Obviously that he wanted us to build the automated balance testing system first and /then/ look at the mixing bay project, which was cheaper and would make the balance testing system redundant. Now, the BMA page hints at this by alluding to the causes of risk, but then gets onto the hobby-horse of helmets even though it is quite possible that the risk could be reduced so far by the other measures - especially training for cyclists and education for drivers - as to make the problem even less significant than it is now. In other words, it's a coatrack on which to hang helmet promotion and completely fails even to acknowledge the fact that helmet use and cycle safety *are not correlated* in any known cyclist population. Which is not unexpected; doctors are paternalistic interventionists by nature. We just shouldn't place too much emphasis on what they say about subjects outside their expertise, like cycle safety. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message In other words, it's a coatrack on which to hang helmet promotion and completely fails even to acknowledge the fact that helmet use and cycle safety *are not correlated* in any known cyclist population. Which is not unexpected; doctors are paternalistic interventionists by nature. We just shouldn't place too much emphasis on what they say about subjects outside their expertise, like cycle safety. I can't see helmet compulsion for adults ever coming in. The cycling lobby is huge and when under attack or when needs must, closes ranks and comes together. Besides which, the biggest problems are obesity and CO2 emissions and of course the appalling road deaths in car accidents. Helmets for adult cyclists is small beer in comparision. -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
The BMA Promote Cycle Helmet Use to make Cycling Safer
francis wrote:
On Apr 19, 2:12 pm, "OG" wrote: Misleading subjectline corrected Misleading subjectline corrected Francis Are you able to point to any instances where mandatory helmet use (which the BMA is promoting) has made /cycling/ safer? |
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know? twisted the electrons to say:
So we recommended that he enclose and air condition the mixing bay and start the mixing crew two hours before the main shift. What was the response? Obviously that he wanted us to build the automated balance testing system first and /then/ look at the mixing bay project, which was cheaper and would make the balance testing system redundant. I think the clear fault there was giving the client what they needed, as opposed to what they said they'd wanted! :-) -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com