The BMJ sees sense

[Andy_R]

Today's Telegraph

 

[Red Light]

Quite a U-turn given the BMJ is part of the BMA who have long held a position that helmets should be compulsory

 

[Dan B]

That's "Long" as in about 6 or 7 years. And having seen the transcript of the meeting that decided it (as I'm sure you have too) it wasn't exactly a unanimous decision

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The subtext being "still compulsory for children" - I am happy with that.

 

[Red Light]

That's "Long" as in about 6 or 7 years. And having seen the transcript of the meeting that decided it (as I'm sure you have too) it wasn't exactly a unanimous decision

No it was clearly a railroaded decision against someone's agenda but it did make it policy. Many have been working without much success to date to get the BMA to reopen the issue so perhaps this will go some way towards making it happen.

 

[Red Light]

The subtext being "still compulsory for children" - I am happy with that.

I didn't see any differentiation between adults and children in the Telegraph article. It just referred to cyclists as far as I can see. Where did you find your subtext?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I didn't see any differentiation between adults and children in the Telegraph article. It just referred to cyclists as far as I can see. Where did you find your subtext?

More than two thirds of the respected journal's readers said they opposed compulsory helmets for adults.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Wow; I'm a respected reader of the BMJ! Cool!

Edit: Ah, no, it is the journal that is respected, not the readers.

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

More than two thirds of the respected journal's readers said they opposed compulsory helmets for adults.

Democracy doesn't always bring about the best outcome.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Democracy doesn't always bring about the best outcome.

The public get what the public want. Isn't that democracy in action. The best selling rags newspapers in the UK are tabloids. It certainly doesn't make them the best papers. That said I would rather live in a country where we can fight to have laws changed than in a dictatorship.

I know your post was non political and I am sorry if this seems a little OTT.

 

[david k]

very interesting, i like your title, SEE SENSE! making a presumption the decision is correct, however this is based on doctors views which until now have been considered as pointless by anti helmet wearers or compulsionists, are they now a good source of evidence?

the report also says that head injuries have decreased since they made it compulsary

the reason for considering removing helmet compulsion is that it will reduce the amount of cyclists, so its based on the amount of people cycling not the benefits of the helmets

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The thing that seems to be missed a lot of the time in this debate is the reason for making something compulsory.

• The decision on whether to wear a helmet should be based on the benefit (or lack of benefit) to the wearer, and relates to the relative risks to the cyclist of wearing or not wearing a helmet.
• The decision on whether to make helmet wearing compulsory should be based on the benefit (or lack of benefit) to society in general, and relates to the relative costs to society of cyclists wearing or not wearing helmets (e.g. health care costs and after-care, etc).

Even if the first were to suggest that one should wear a helmet (not that it does), that would not mean that the second should come down on the side of compulsion.

 

[4F]

the report also says that head injuries have decreased since they made it compulsary

What the paragraph said in full however was:-

Australia made it illegal to not wear a helmet in 1991 but Sydney University researchers have called for the law to be repealed, arguing that the fall in head injuries was down to road safety improvements, rather than the new law.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

What the paragraph said in full however was:-

Australia made it illegal to not wear a helmet in 1991 but Sydney University researchers have called for the law to be repealed, arguing that the fall in head injuries was down to road safety improvements, rather than the new law.

You do realise that University Research can mean 10 minutes of number crunching by some 1st year students don't you.

 

[4F]

You do realise that University Research can mean 10 minutes of number crunching by some 1st year students don't you.

Someone has to do it