#1
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
BRAKE have weighed in inna road "safety" stylee with this load of the
most complete ******** imaginable: "Nearly two thirds (63%) of the public would support a law making it compulsory to wear cycle helmets, according to a national survey. The survey results coincide with the second reading of a parliamentary bill making it compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets which takes place today. Brake, the national road safety charity, strongly supports the bill which will make it an offence for anyone under 16 to ride a bike on a road, pavement or recreation ground without wearing a helmet. Wearing a cycle helmet is strongly supported by health practitioners and medical evidence. According to research by the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 50 children's lives could be saved each year if the law was changed to make wearing cycle helmets compulsory. The number of upper head injuries could be reduced by 85%, brain injuries reduced by 88% and facial injuries by 65%. As well as Brake and the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT), national health bodies supporting the bill include: * *a.. Royal College of Surgeons * *b.. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health * *c.. Royal College of Nursing * *d.. Society of British Neurological Surgeons The British Dental Association and Faculty of Dental Practices also support the bill as a result of the serious facial injuries caused by cycling crashes. Despite the overwhelming importance of wearing a cycle helmet, The National Cycling Strategy and the national cycling organisation, CTC, oppose making helmets compulsory as they argue that requiring people to wear cycle helmets will deter them from cycling. They claim that the health benefits of cycling are greater than the casualty faced. Mary Williams OBE, chief executive of Brake, says: "We must challenge the idea that cycle helmets are a deterrent to bicycle use. They are a responsible, practical and easily implementable way of protecting children's lives. If children are taught from an early age that wearing a helmet is the law and recognise it protects them against death or serious injury, then arguments against helmet use will disappear. As these children grow up they will become adults who have no problem wearing a helmet. Brake is disappointed that some cycling lobby groups are against this life-saving measure. Try telling the parents of children who have been killed or brain-injured through being knocked off their bike that helmets aren't a vital protective measure. If we are prepared to protect professional cyclists by requiring them to wear helmets in races such as the Tour de France then surely we owe it to ourselves to protect our most precious possession - our children." Professor Tim Coats, professor of emergency medicine at Leicester Royal Infirmary, says: "Head or face injury is one of the commonest reasons for a child to be brought to the Accident and Emergency Department. Injury is the biggest cause of death in children. Compulsory use of cycle helmets would significantly reduce the number of children who are killed or severely injured each year." Brake also strongly supports cycle lanes and driver education to protect cyclists. Other survey results include: *a.. 63% said they support a law making cycle helmets compulsory; * *b.. 85% said the government should support campaigns to encourage people to wear cycle helmets; * *c.. 84% said that cycle helmets save lives; * *d.. 45% said the reason people do not wear cycle helmets is because they are 'not cool'. To arrange an interview with Mary Williams contact Brake's campaign officer, Simon Collister, on 01484 559909 or out of hours 07971 612857. The survey was conducted by the website Myvoice.co.uk. It surveyed the views of 9256 members of the public via its website. -- 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 Washington University |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... The survey was conducted by the website Myvoice.co.uk. It surveyed the views of 9256 members of the public via its website. ...so it's produced invalid statistics, I'd suggest. I know the Internet's popular nowadays, but you've immediately biased your sample towards those who have access by conducting asurvey via a website. I'd be interested to hear how the sample was selected in other respects. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:23:11 +0100, "Simon D"
wrote in message : I'd be interested to hear how the sample was selected in other respects. People who agreed with the statement "This week is Brain Injury Awareness Week, and among other things the campaign supports the use of bicycle helmets. Government is currently considering a bill to make the wearing of cycling helmets compulsory for under 16s. Last Friday was the 1st anniversary of the death of Andrei Kivilev the professional cyclist whose death led the International Cycling Union to make cycle helmets compulsory in all professional races. We thought that we would get your feedback on wearing bicycle helmets. Sources: http://db.bbc.co.uk/health/awareness/brain.shtml and http://cyclingnews.com In other words, a small, self-selected sample fed biased information at the point of survey. And that is probably the /most/ credible and accurate thing in this press release! -- 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 Washington University |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:23:11 +0100, "Simon D" wrote in message : I'd be interested to hear how the sample was selected in other respects. People who agreed with the statement "This week is Brain Injury Awareness Week, and among other things the campaign supports the use of bicycle helmets. Government is currently considering a bill to make the wearing of cycling helmets compulsory for under 16s. Last Friday was the 1st anniversary of the death of Andrei Kivilev the professional cyclist whose death led the International Cycling Union to make cycle helmets compulsory in all professional races. We thought that we would get your feedback on wearing bicycle helmets. Sources: http://db.bbc.co.uk/health/awareness/brain.shtml and http://cyclingnews.com In other words, a small, self-selected sample fed biased information at the point of survey. And that is probably the /most/ credible and accurate thing in this press release! -- Guy === I agree - completely invalid. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/2004 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
Simon D wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:23:11 +0100, "Simon D" wrote in message : I'd be interested to hear how the sample was selected in other respects. People who agreed with the statement "This week is Brain Injury Awareness Week, and among other things the campaign supports the use of bicycle helmets. snip In other words, a small, self-selected sample fed biased information at the point of survey. And that is probably the /most/ credible and accurate thing in this press release! I agree - completely invalid. Of course, but the results will still be believed by the gullible majority who are unlikely to question their validity. That is what is so galling about this whole campaign. Most surveys are designed to acheive the results the surveyors already want. I am now coming across lots of ordinary people who support compulsion because they can see no further than the fact that a helmet may protect *their* child's life. Eyes just glaze over when the wider picture is explained. John B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
... BRAKE have weighed in inna road "safety" stylee with this load of the most complete ******** imaginable: "Nearly two thirds (63%) of the public would support a law making it compulsory to wear cycle helmets, according to a national survey. The survey results coincide with the second reading of a parliamentary bill making it compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets which takes place today. Brake, the national road safety charity, strongly supports the bill which will make it an offence for anyone under 16 to ride a bike on a road, pavement or recreation ground without wearing a helmet. Wearing a cycle helmet is strongly supported by health practitioners and medical evidence. According to research by the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 50 children's lives could be saved each year if the law was changed to make wearing cycle helmets compulsory. The number of upper head injuries could be reduced by 85%, brain injuries reduced by 88% and facial injuries by 65%. As well as Brake and the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT), national health bodies supporting the bill include: a.. Royal College of Surgeons b.. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health c.. Royal College of Nursing d.. Society of British Neurological Surgeons The British Dental Association and Faculty of Dental Practices also support the bill as a result of the serious facial injuries caused by cycling crashes. Despite the overwhelming importance of wearing a cycle helmet, The National Cycling Strategy and the national cycling organisation, CTC, oppose making helmets compulsory as they argue that requiring people to wear cycle helmets will deter them from cycling. They claim that the health benefits of cycling are greater than the casualty faced. Mary Williams OBE, chief executive of Brake, says: "We must challenge the idea that cycle helmets are a deterrent to bicycle use. They are a responsible, practical and easily implementable way of protecting children's lives. If children are taught from an early age that wearing a helmet is the law and recognise it protects them against death or serious injury, then arguments against helmet use will disappear. As these children grow up they will become adults who have no problem wearing a helmet. Brake is disappointed that some cycling lobby groups are against this life-saving measure. Try telling the parents of children who have been killed or brain-injured through being knocked off their bike that helmets aren't a vital protective measure. If we are prepared to protect professional cyclists by requiring them to wear helmets in races such as the Tour de France then surely we owe it to ourselves to protect our most precious possession - our children." Professor Tim Coats, professor of emergency medicine at Leicester Royal Infirmary, says: "Head or face injury is one of the commonest reasons for a child to be brought to the Accident and Emergency Department. Injury is the biggest cause of death in children. Compulsory use of cycle helmets would significantly reduce the number of children who are killed or severely injured each year." Brake also strongly supports cycle lanes and driver education to protect cyclists. Other survey results include: a.. 63% said they support a law making cycle helmets compulsory; b.. 85% said the government should support campaigns to encourage people to wear cycle helmets; c.. 84% said that cycle helmets save lives; d.. 45% said the reason people do not wear cycle helmets is because they are 'not cool'. To arrange an interview with Mary Williams contact Brake's campaign officer, Simon Collister, on 01484 559909 or out of hours 07971 612857. The survey was conducted by the website Myvoice.co.uk. It surveyed the views of 9256 members of the public via its website. -- 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 Washington University I was going to ring their campaign officer, but emailed instead: I have just had the misfortune to read your press release about Eric Marlew MP's helmet bill to make cycle helmets compulsory for under 16s. I am utterly astonished that an organisation of such repute as BRAKE would swallow, hook, line and sinker, the lies told by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT). You appear not to be aware that BHIT are a single issue lobbying group, who are not interested in road safety, they are only interested in forcing cyclists to wear helmets. BHIT are notorious for exagerating the risks of cycling and the protective effect of helmets. I note that you quote the BHIT statistic that 85% of head injuries to cyclists would be prevented by helmets: this figure is not even supported by the authors of the research it is based upon, a fact known to BHIT, but which does not deter them from using it. I would have expected an organisation such as BRAKE to have investigated cycle helmets thoroughly before commiting itself, and it is somewhat depressing to find that you accept the nonsense spouted by a single issue pressure group. Despite the claims made for cycle helmets by BHIT and others, there is no reliable evidence to show that helmets are effective, and much to show that they actually increase the risks to cyclists. In areas of the world where helmets were made compulsory, deaths and injuries did fall, but not by as much as the number of cyclists, so the risk to each cyclist rose. Please consider withdrawing your ill-considered press release until you can be confident that what you are saying is supported by the facts, otherwise you run the risk of losing support because you are not factual. cheers Rich |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
... BRAKE have weighed in inna road "safety" stylee with this load of the most complete ******** imaginable: and they're not the only ones: http://www.headway.org.uk/default.asp?step=4&pid=103 Headway's policy statement on cycle helmets is Cycle Helmets The wearing of cycle helmets should become compulsory, following an education and Public Relations Campaign and an investigation into the practicalities of enforcement, both for under 16s and adults. I rang the press officer for BRAKE, who didn't seem best pleased at being disturbed at 9:40, but I'll ring him back tomorrow. Please consider doing the same. If you send an email, you get the response that the recipient is on hols until Tuesday, so ringing is better. cheers Rich |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
Reply to burt
I was going to ring their campaign officer, but emailed instead: My work-in-progress, written in a white-hot rage: I was horrified and saddened to learn recently that Brake supports the bill at present before Parliament to make cycle helmets for children compulsory; given the paucity of evidence from the real world that cycle helmets have any measurable effect on road safety, and the plethora of evidence that helmet compulsion has always reduced the amount of cycling wherever it has been tried, I would have hoped that Brake would oppose the bill strenuously. The press release I have read contains a number of inaccuracies, which do not reflect well on your organisation; in particular, your Chief Executive's statement: "If children are taught from an early age that wearing a helmet is the law and recognise it protects them against death or serious injury, then arguments against helmet use will disappear" seems to me the height of irresponsibility: considering that helmets are rated by their manufacturers to provide limited protection only in low-speed collisions, to tell children that helmets will protect them against death or serious injury would be not only lying to them, but might well encourage a false sense of safety which could be disastrous. Such a false sense of safety may be responsible for the failure of cycle helmets to improve accident statistics in populations where compulsion laws have been passed. -- Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
BRAKE on helmets
"Gonzalez" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:05:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: Despite the overwhelming importance of wearing a cycle helmet, The National Cycling Strategy and the national cycling organisation, CTC, oppose making helmets compulsory as they argue that requiring people to wear cycle helmets will deter them from cycling. They claim that the health benefits of cycling are greater than the casualty faced. I wonder how they *know* that. Cos they asked the BMA, who did an exhaustive invesitigation into life-years gained against life-years lost due to cycling, and found that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits by at least 20:1, generally considered an underestimate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Centerpull brakes | Gary Young | Techniques | 77 | November 20th 03 11:49 AM |
6 or 8 inches front disc? | Colin | Techniques | 122 | November 18th 03 01:01 AM |
Mushy rear brake - ideas for improvement? | tony the tiger | Techniques | 3 | October 19th 03 10:14 AM |
Tightening brake cables | Pete Biggs | UK | 12 | September 4th 03 08:50 AM |