Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
"An attempt to introduce this was made previously by Bristol MP Jean Corston - this attempt failed.
However, this latest attempt already has 46 signatories (Jean Corston isn't one of them yet, nor any
other Bristol MPs) - the proposer is Alan Meale (Mansfield).
Attached is a copy of a letter from a CTC member to his MP re the EDM on helmets which might be
useful as a template if BCC members want to respond similarly. The general thought is that this EDM
will fail due to lack of time, but might be being used as a marker for inclusion in a road safety
bill expected next year.
There is a lot of info generally about helmets - CTC are drawing up a briefing linking the issue
with cycling for health (stating that compulsory helmet use would have a major detrimental overall
effect on health) - ctc.org.ukctc.org.ukOpen ↗
Here is a website that has been recommended as a good resource for info based on the American
experience:
<http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html>
Copy of letter sent to MP rejecting the Early Day Motion:
Could I draw your attention to the Early Day Motion on behalf of the BICYCLE HELMET INITIATIVE
TRUST and warn you that this motion is full of factual errors if not deliberate deception. The
motion states:-
BICYCLE HELMET INITIATIVE TRUST
That this House notes that every year in the UK approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16
years receive a serious head injury as a result of a cycling accident and that sadly a number die as
a result, whilst for many others their accident will have a devastating impact on their life, in
many cases restricting their abilities to develop, learn new skills, make new friends and face the
lifelong challenges of the world; recognizes that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of
such head injuries could be prevented; commends the excellent campaign of the Bicycle Helmet
Initiative Trust to get Parliament to introduce legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by all
bicyclists in the UK; and calls upon her Majesty's Government to give its full support to such a
proposal which would both save lives and stop injuries on our roads. The 28,000 figure is false.
This is the figure for head injuries from ALL causes not from Cycling. The figure recorded from
cycling is 1,200. In order to save the other 26,800 perhaps all children should be made to wear
helmets at all times even in bed as falling out of bed can cause severe head injury.
The suggestion that 85% of these injuries could be prevented by wearing a cycle helmet is an absurd
fiction. Research by the TRL suggested a figure of 16% however there is also evidence from Australia
that wearing helmets increases the frequency of serious neck injuries.
There is no evidence that the compulsory wearing of helmets saves lives and reduces injuries.
Figures from Australia show that the compulsory wearing of helmets brought about a major reduction
in cycling particularly among teenagers. The claimed reduction in head injuries was less than the
reduction in the amount of cycling so there was no reduction in the "Danger" of cycling.
Promotion of cycle helmets based on exaggerating the risks of cycling has the effect of reducing the
amount of cycling. Compulsory use of helmets would reduce cycling even more. Not only is this
contrary to the government's National Cycle Strategy but the consequent reduction in healthy
exercise will increase the number of premature deaths from heart disease. Some time since the BMA
came out against compulsion for this reason.
In Holland hardly anyone wears cycling helmets yet they do not have a problem with cycling head
injuries despite the vast number of cyclists of all ages.
I am not against helmets all together. For stunt riding and racing they may be appropriate though
the protection they give is limited to low speed impacts with flat surfaces. I am totally against
compulsion in this area as the case for them is at best unproven while the damage to cycling of
compulsion has been demonstrated in Australia and elsewhere.
So finally, I would ask you to reject this Early Day Motion and to warn your friends of the
falsehoods and dangers in it.
Regards"