H*lm*ts: Ever get the feeling you've been stitched up?

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5702

UK docs to vote on cycle helmet compulsion


--
Mark, UK

"Those who are at war with others are not at peace with themselves."

"That this Meeting believes the main health hazard for cyclists is
being hit by a motorised vehicle and that local and national government
should prioritise integrated transport policies that require the
introduction of safe cycle lanes in urban areas."

The medics obviously use a different dictionary to the rest of us.

Surely what they're talking about is not "integrated" transport, but
"segregated" transport?

Why does "belief" come into it anyway - They are scientists and so the
main health hazard either _is_ or _isn't_ regardless of any _beliefs_ -
leave faith to the church.

Mark McNeill wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5702

UK docs to vote on cycle helmet compulsion



Martlehats and BeemaBelts all round then?

Terry Duckmanton :-(

iakobski wrote:

Why does "belief" come into it anyway - They are scientists

Up to a point, Lord Copper. My department does not employ doctors, but
it employs several Clinical Scientists. They are a very distinct thing.

Some doctors are very good scientists, but any given doctor isn't
necessarily any much use at science.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mark McNeill wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5702

UK docs to vote on cycle helmet compulsion

What did you expect? It's been clear for some time that this was going
to be a carefully stage-managed stitch-up. The policy reversal was
obviously politically motivated and the same forces have been at work
here. It's a sad state of affairs and I can only hope that those
members of the BMA who are sufficiently concerned with its reputation
will continue to work to get this overturned.

--
Dave...

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:34:56 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

iakobski wrote:

Why does "belief" come into it anyway - They are scientists

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

What a coincidence. I started re-reading Scoop this very day!

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:27:20 +0100, Mark McNeill
wrote:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5702
UK docs to vote on cycle helmet compulsion

I suppose the fact that I have been working on little else for some
weeks means that I assumed everyone knew about this.

There will be a fringe meeting hosted by CTC, and Peter Ward and
Richard Keatinge will, I think, both be speaking. The Usual Suspects
have been putting in a lot of work, of course, but in the end the
debate is severely curtailed and it is the curtailment of debate which
is most likely to be a problem.

And yes, the phrase "stitch-up" has been used more than once.

The crucial thing to get across to doctors at this meeting is that
voting for compulsion is not about saying that helmets are good, the
BMA already says that; it's saying: if you believe cycling is not so
very dangerous that a trip to the shops requires special protective
equipment, that you are not only wrong, but criminally wrong.

Trying to come up with soundbytes to counter the "Scary head injuries!
Waaah!" and "Bike Danger!" bull**** is nigh on impossible.

The previous day (or maybe the day before that) there will be an
extended debate on obesity. Guess which country has the lowest rate
of obesity in Western Europe, despite having no hills to ride up?
Cycle use correlates strongly with low rates of obesity and heart
disease.

It's like Eddie Izzard and his spiel about cancer scares. "Research
shows red wine is good for you! And it gives you cancer."

Either cycling is good for you or it is lethally dangerous. Which is
it?

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 22 Jun 2005 03:24:15 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
wrote this:-

The medics obviously use a different dictionary to the rest of us.

They do. One of their more amusing claims is that they can reduce
mortality. Next they will be turning water into wine.

Why does "belief" come into it anyway - They are scientists

No they are not. The closest group they come to are engineers.
Doctors are very bad at their job compared to engineers, but it is
fair to add that they deal with far more complex things than
engineers.

Doctors should stick to what they are trained for, repairing damaged
bodies, instead of making fools of themselves by venturing into
areas about which they know no more than anyone else not trained in
the field.

All I can suggest opponents do is to try and get briefing papers
into the hands of delegates the night before.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Mark McNeill wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5702

UK docs to vote on cycle helmet compulsion

Thanks for the alert - I've sent a 'review the evidence before voting
please' plea to an academic public health e-mail list I'm on (although I've
no idea if anyone with a vote is actually on this list).
I was trying to be as non-contentious as possible, whilst hopefully still
making the point...although looking at it again, I may have been too cagey.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C38A52E4B

Cheers
Ben

--
Spam trap: Replace spamisdoomed with ben

Mark McNeill wrote:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5702

UK docs to vote on cycle helmet compulsion


It's been said before, but doctors are as qualified to tell people how
to cycle safely as panel-beaters are qualified to tell people how to
drive safely.