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

In article ,=20
says...
BRAKE have weighed in inna road "safety" stylee with this load of the
most complete ******** imaginable:

snip
=20
=A0a.. 63% said they support a law making cycle helmets compulsory;
=A0 =A0b.. 85% said the government should support campaigns to encourage
people to wear cycle helmets;
=A0 =A0c.. 84% said that cycle helmets save lives;

Which puts findings "a" & "b" in context really.=20

=A0 =A0d.. 45% said the reason people do not wear cycle helmets is becaus=
e
they are 'not cool'.

They're not. They make your head uncomfortably warm!
=20
To arrange an interview with Mary Williams contact Brake's campaign
officer, Simon Collister, on 01484 559909 or out of hours 07971
612857.=20

Anyone fancy an unsociable phone campaign.

The survey was conducted by the website Myvoice.co.uk. It surveyed the
views of 9256 members of the public via its website.

Ah. Well that's OK then. Hands up if you; a) Knew that myvoice.co.uk=20
existed. b) Knew that they were running this survey.

Jon

"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

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

"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

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

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

"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

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.

"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.