|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Andrew Muzi are you ok? | [email protected][_2_] | Techniques | 36 | September 4th 09 01:56 PM |
andrew vernon albright... | gym.gravity | Racing | 6 | October 24th 06 05:13 PM |
Curran Gulch ~Video~ | Ride-A-Lot | Mountain Biking | 1 | August 25th 05 06:00 PM |
Movie: Andrew and Tony in New Zealand... | andrew_carter | Unicycling | 17 | March 2nd 05 10:37 AM |
Andrew Heckman Gets Hip Rebuilt! | Cycle America | Rides | 3 | April 7th 04 03:36 AM |