Many obese people face an increased risk of illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. On average, their lives will be shortened by nine years.If intended as an attempt to run the old 'your behaviour is harming others' routine so beloved of the anti-smoking industry, it didn't gain much traction.
But some might be unwittingly putting the lives of others at risk too.
These additional fatalities are occurring not in Britain's cardiac units, but on the country's roads, due to people falling asleep at the wheel of cars and lorries.
See, the problem of people eating what they choose is a real stumbling block for your archetypal finger-wagger. Those who spend their entire existence devising strategies on how to interfere in the lives of everyone else are, thus far, frustrated because even our absurdly bovine public are utterly unconvinced that it is an issue for anyone but the over-eater themselves.
"Passive obesity" as a concept is just too far-fetched for anyone to swallow (pun not entirely intended). Plus, any remedy - such as banning McDonald's, for example, or other restrictions on free choice of food - is fundamentally illiberal to such an extent that it would threaten the carefully-crafted 'caring' persona which public health relies on. When plain packaging of Bird's Eye frozen burgers finally arrives, the game will be up and the public will know that they're being dictated to by nosey, joyless, petty-minded, anti-social pecksniffs ... which, of course, they have been for quite a while already without fully realising it.
Still, it would appear that the obesity and road deaths approach is considered to have some mileage yet (pun not entirely etc) as it has re-surfaced in Seattle.
A new study claims that obesity could not only increase a driver’s risk of being in a car accident, but also result in more severe injuries.A matter for them only, you might say, but then this hasn't stopped laws forbidding riding motorbikes without helmets; driving without a seat belt; and, in some countries, riding a push-bike without wearing a piece of foam on your head.
The study, conducted by Canadian scientists at the University of Laval and published in the Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, claimed that morbidly obese drivers may be at increased risk of a crash due to weight-related health complications.
Additionally, car designs that are less than sympathetic to larger frames could leave obese drivers in more critical condition following an accident.Of course, this would increase overheads and make cars more expensive, probably for everyone, but collective punishment has never been an obstacle for the dedicated public health tax leech.
Researchers additionally claim that carmakers should try to design vehicles whose safety features are more adjustable, in order to provide protection for a broader range of drivers.
In all observable and documented legislative criteria, the 'something-must-be-done' crowd have identified this as a potential winner with governments. It's imperative, d'you see, to protect the overweight from themselves. If big, bad motor manufacturers won't do it, the state must surely step in. Not too onerous a problem, just a medical to ascertain BMI once every 10 years along with the renewed photo, and just think of the environmental benefits once anyone registering over 35 is taken off the roads, eh?
Several previous studies were also examined in the process, including one which found that found men with body mass indexes greater than 30 were more likely to suffer facial, spinal, head and upper chest injuries in a collision than those with BMIs below 30.You'll get the bus, fat boy, and like it. It's for your own good, after all, and you'll appreciate the enforced exercise after a few weeks.
And just for good measure ...
Another study reportedly referenced by University of Laval’s medical researchers found that 800,000 drivers in the America with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea were involved in illness-related car accidents in the year 2000, which supported their claims that obesity-related ailments also contribute to road hazards.Well, you didn't expect the 'passive obesity' idea to be forgotten entirely, did you? You never know when it might come in handy.
H/T NorCal David G
13 comments:
"800,000 drivers in the America with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea were involved in illness-related car accidents in the year 2000, which supported their claims that obesity-related ailments also contribute to road hazards."
Hark at the weasel logic.
(1) How many drivers with sleep apnea were not involved in car accidents? We're not told. The proportion of drivers with sleep apnea having car accidents in a given year could be quite small.
(2) Of those drivers with sleep apnea who had car accidents, how many were obese? We're not told. Again, could be quite a small proportion.
(3) How many obese drivers have sleep apnea? We're not told. The implication is, obese people are more likely to have sleep apnea than non-obese people, but that doesn't mean that many, or even most, obese drivers suffer from the condition.
This is basically like saying: 800,000 drivers with two functioning eyeballs were involved in sight-related car accidents this year. People of normal weight are more likely to have two functioning eyeballs than obese people (obesity is linked to diabetes is linked to sight loss, don'tchaknow), which supports my claim that normal-weight-related conditions contribute to road hazards.
Christ almighty, DP, do these people never give up?
You won't be getting the bus if your embedded medi-chip reports that you haven't done your allotted exercise for the day. The driver will look you in the eye and say 'Computer says no' and you'll have to walk a few stops and try again.
The technology is already available, and why would anyone who isn't obese, a smoker or a drunk object to such a chip? Nothing to hide...
Besides, tell the drones their chips could save their lives in an accident, by helping emergency services locate them and instantly giving the paramedics a full medical history, and they'll be fighting to be first.
You can't be too careful about the risks to ordinary road users from second hand obesity.
Both anti-alcohol and anti-obesity have to find something equating in obesity/alcohol terms to “passive smoking” or they’re dead in the water. One of the lessons learned by the anti-smoking industry (and no doubt passed on at their recent “tutoring” session) was that all the time someone is only perceived to be harming themselves, then the British public tend to hold the view that that’s their business and their business only. It was only after the “passive smoking” myth made the headlines that the anti-smoking movement really took off, and the other anti-groups know this only too well. The moment any particular group are perceived to be harming “innocent bystanders,” then the public’s dander gets up and the required levels of public outrange and hysteria can be wound up to the levels required for politicians to take notice (and offer funding). But I think I see the beginnings of a power-struggle here as these two groups vie for the top slot as the Government’s New Best Friend. Drink-driving has long been one of the stalwarts of anti-alcohol campaigners and must surely be the most obvious first candidate for them to claim as “their” version of “passive smoking.” Anti-obesity, on the other hand, has a more difficult job finding their own “innocent bystander” on whose behalf to ramp up public affront, and I suspect that they might well trying to steal a march on anti-alcohol to get ahead of them with this claim, because whereas anti-alcohol could still claim crime, social disorder and family breakdown, there aren’t very many other areas where anti-obesity might claim that obese people harm others. I wonder if in response to this anti-alcohol will ramp up the ante with some kind of “alcohol is involved in 90% of all road traffic accidents” type claim in the very near future to try and claim drink-driving back as “theirs?” What a very cutthroat business conning the public has become these days!
But I think I see the beginnings of a power-struggle here as these two groups vie for the top slot as the Government’s New Best Friend. Drink-driving has long been one of the stalwarts of anti-alcohol campaigners and must surely be the most obvious first candidate for them to claim as “their” version of “passive smoking.” Anti-obesity, on the other hand, has a more difficult job finding their own “innocent bystander” on whose behalf to ramp up public affront, and I suspect that they might well trying to steal a march on anti-alcohol to get ahead of them with this claim, because whereas anti-alcohol could still claim crime, social disorder and family breakdown, there aren’t very many other areas where anti-obesity might claim that obese people harm others. I wonder if in response to this anti-alcohol will ramp up the ante with some kind of “alcohol is involved in 90% of all road traffic accidents” type claim in the very near future to try and claim drink-driving back as “theirs?”
What a very cutthroat business conning the public has become these days!
Whoops! Don't know how the last two paras managed to show twice! Not sure I like this new comments system, DP!!
Churchmouse had a nice blog article a couple of weeks back about how the obese were threatening the WORLD with their tonnes of excess fat! See:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/scientists-say-obese-threaten-global-food-security/
And while I'm sad to say that I seem to have misplaced it, I *know* that at some point in the last few weeks I saw an article that computed the number of thousands of "tonnes" of fat that the obese were burdening the world with. Anyone else remember where that might have been?
:?
MJM
Typo in the original article. The paragraph starting with...
"The study, conducted by Canadian scientists at the University of Laval..."
should actually start with
"The study, concocted by Canadian scientists at the University of Laval..."
;-)
The usual caveat " ...obese drivers *may* be at increased risk..."
Dunno why they don't hike up fuel and transport taxes even more and thus tax the obese poor back into waddling everywhere.
"obesity could not only increase a driver’s risk of being in a car accident, but also result in more severe injuries"
It's a lie. Fat people bounce.
I've got to admit that killing other people by being fat argument is a stroke of genius.
This is scary, but unfortunately, typical. People get on some bandwagon and then claim that it's good for the whole of humanity and the opposition must be stopped or we'll all die. Ugh. It's maddening, especially when it leads to really bad public policy.
Still haven't seen the "fat people kill kiddies" angle though. That is the Holy Grail.
Post a Comment