|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |