A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The BMA Promote Safer Cycling



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 18th 09, 08:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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.
  #2  
Old April 19th 09, 06:14 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick L Plate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,114
Default 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.
  #3  
Old April 19th 09, 12:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default 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.


  #4  
Old April 19th 09, 12:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick L Plate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,114
Default 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.
  #5  
Old April 19th 09, 01:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,174
Default 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/

  #6  
Old April 19th 09, 01:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default 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?
  #7  
Old April 19th 09, 01:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,174
Default 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/

  #8  
Old April 19th 09, 01:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default 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.


  #9  
Old April 19th 09, 01:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default 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.


  #10  
Old April 19th 09, 02:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,174
Default 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/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycling is safer with LANCE gone [email protected] Racing 4 July 14th 08 08:17 AM
Critical Mass - productive campaign to promote cycling or... The Nottingham Duck UK 54 September 23rd 05 06:33 AM
Safer Helmet Tilly UK 1 June 17th 05 12:07 PM
MTBing Safer Than You Might Think Bill Wheeler Mountain Biking 15 November 27th 04 03:58 AM
Bridelways now safer Just zis Guy, you know? UK 2 July 29th 03 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.