Bonefishblues wrote:Stevek76 wrote:thirdcrank wrote:NB No mention of helmets or hi-viz, but a pretty clear hint that new offences such as causing death by dangerous cycling would be on the agenda.
It seems to me that one way or another, we've concentrated on hi-viz and helmets to the exclusion of some other significant subjects which are definitely on the agenda rather than "up for debate," which I interpret as a stock reply. Whatever, he claims it will be based on "solid evidence" so it might be worth letting him have some.
The 'review' is two parts. The first is a look specifically at the hole in offences and if/how this should be plugged.
The second part is pretty much a blank canvas on cyclist safety in general. There is nothing specific on the agenda for this section but it will be informed by submissions from groups and individuals.
Given it's a guarantee that the
loons at Headway etc will be straight in there with the helmet/high vis compulsion line it is critical that this is headed off with the relevant evidence. But certainly there should be plenty of submissions on the need for proper infrastructure (and mandatory standards for it) and poor enforcement of shoddy driving standards.
Why are they thus, and even if so, why label them thus? Might it just be better to avoid name-calling, even if exposed to it?
Headway are as bad as BHIT when it comes to misquoting and being misleading with their claims.
A couple of years ago... When Headway did this, I asked for the references, and reluctantly was led to a paper in a Dental Journal
Headway sated that:
t is estimated that 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents occur every year in the UK, of which a disproportionate number involve children under 16.
Child cyclists in the UK deserve the same protection as those in countries such as USA, Canada and Australia which have introduced compulsory helmet laws for children.
Headway - the brain injury association along with other national charities and the British Medical Association, believe that cycle helmets can save lives and prevent lifelong disability.
When you actually look at the figures in the original paper this is a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of both the figures and the context
When this was queried the reply was that:
The statistic relating to the 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road
accidents comes from the following reference: Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does
the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR,
Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.
The actual paper stated that :
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEAD INJURY AFTER BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
Across all ages in the UK it is estimated that there are 90,000 road-
related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents per year. Of these
accidents, 100,000 (53%) involved children under 16, suggesting
that children are at greater risk of injury during cycling than adults.
In the UK, there were between 127 and 203 cycling fatalities
per year between 1996 and 2002, of which 70–80% were
caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).The most recent Gov-
ernment death and serious injury figures2 are summarised in
Table 1. In children under 16, two-thirds of cycle-related deaths
occur in road traffic accidents (RTAs) with the remaining third
occurring whilst the child is cycling off road. The majority of
injuries, however, occur when children are cycling off road3–6
and, of these, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most likely to
have long-term consequences.
They have simply quoted the figure for ALL cycle accidents and implied that they are all serious head injuries!
When you actually look at the figures in the paper 100,000 becomes - 150!
Of course 150 accidents in ALL cyclists will be even less if you just count children, and even less still if you look at non- vehicular accidents, probably as few as 20 or 30
If the "evidence" is so strong - why lie like this
