J
Just Zis Guy
Guest
http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=9046
Opposition: from Griffiths to proposal
TWO big wheels in Reading are on a collision course in the
House of Commons over the wearing of cycle helmets.
Pro-helmet charity boss Angie Lee is looking forward to the
second reading of the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists
Bill on Friday, April 23, which, if passed, could make cycle
helmet wearing for under-16s compulsory.
But Reading East MP Jane Griffiths – who has consistently
opposed any idea of legislating on cycle helmets – has
tabled an Early Day Motion rubbishing claims about their
effectiveness.
Her motion cites Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
reports that promoting cycle helmets may lead to increased
injury rates.
And she calls on the Department of Transport to carry out
research on why increases in helmet wearing do not lead to a
reduction in head injuries and why countries like Holland,
with the lowest helmet-wearing rates, have the lowest
cycling injury rates.
Ms Griffiths told the Evening Post: “The TRL research that I
have read suggests that young cyclists might tend to take
more risks when they are wearing helmets.
“In Australia, where wearing cycle helmets is mandatory
in two states, there was a significant proportionate
increase in head injuries – that is to say the number of
people cycling decreased and the head injury levels
stayed the same.”
Ms Griffiths also said head injuries in cyclists were
extremely rare because they are normally knocked sideways,
injuring wrists or shoulders.
Children under four years old – who she says should not be
on the roads alone – are the only age group where head
injury is more common.
Ms Griffiths, who does not wear a helmet when she is
cycling, said cycle groups in Reading supported her stance.
Ms Lee said she was not surprised her local MP was not
supporting the bill promoted by the national charity she
founded, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust.
Ms Lee set up the charity in Reading after seeing, through
her work as a theatre nurse, the devastating head injuries
resulting from cycling accidents among teenagers and young
children and was awarded an MBE for her work.
She said: “Jane Griffiths has always taken this view so it
is not a surprise now that she has tabled this motion.
“The trouble with accident statistics is that you must
compare like with like.
“It is true that people don’t wear cycle helmets in Holland
and cycle injury levels are low, but cyclists have a much
higher priority in that country.
“There are cycle lanes everywhere where the cyclists are
completely separated from the traffic.
“Also cyclists represent a far higher proportion of
the traffic.
“A better comparison would be Canada where wearing cycle
helmets for under 16-year-olds, which is what we are calling
for, has been the law since 1996.
“In Canada, there has been no decrease in the number of
children cycling but there has been a reduction in the
number of head injuries.”
She said the charity used research from TRL, based in
Crowthorne, and had not come across anything suggesting
cycle helmets were ineffective protection for children.
She said: “This early day motion is just muddying the
waters. The important issue is about protecting children
from injury.”
Cycling MP Peter Bottomley has tabled a spoiling amendment
to Ms Griffiths’s motion recognising that cycle helmets are
likely to reduce the incidence of deaths and head injuries
and calling on cyclists groups and the Department of
Transport to make it known widely.
--
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
Opposition: from Griffiths to proposal
TWO big wheels in Reading are on a collision course in the
House of Commons over the wearing of cycle helmets.
Pro-helmet charity boss Angie Lee is looking forward to the
second reading of the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists
Bill on Friday, April 23, which, if passed, could make cycle
helmet wearing for under-16s compulsory.
But Reading East MP Jane Griffiths – who has consistently
opposed any idea of legislating on cycle helmets – has
tabled an Early Day Motion rubbishing claims about their
effectiveness.
Her motion cites Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
reports that promoting cycle helmets may lead to increased
injury rates.
And she calls on the Department of Transport to carry out
research on why increases in helmet wearing do not lead to a
reduction in head injuries and why countries like Holland,
with the lowest helmet-wearing rates, have the lowest
cycling injury rates.
Ms Griffiths told the Evening Post: “The TRL research that I
have read suggests that young cyclists might tend to take
more risks when they are wearing helmets.
“In Australia, where wearing cycle helmets is mandatory
in two states, there was a significant proportionate
increase in head injuries – that is to say the number of
people cycling decreased and the head injury levels
stayed the same.”
Ms Griffiths also said head injuries in cyclists were
extremely rare because they are normally knocked sideways,
injuring wrists or shoulders.
Children under four years old – who she says should not be
on the roads alone – are the only age group where head
injury is more common.
Ms Griffiths, who does not wear a helmet when she is
cycling, said cycle groups in Reading supported her stance.
Ms Lee said she was not surprised her local MP was not
supporting the bill promoted by the national charity she
founded, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust.
Ms Lee set up the charity in Reading after seeing, through
her work as a theatre nurse, the devastating head injuries
resulting from cycling accidents among teenagers and young
children and was awarded an MBE for her work.
She said: “Jane Griffiths has always taken this view so it
is not a surprise now that she has tabled this motion.
“The trouble with accident statistics is that you must
compare like with like.
“It is true that people don’t wear cycle helmets in Holland
and cycle injury levels are low, but cyclists have a much
higher priority in that country.
“There are cycle lanes everywhere where the cyclists are
completely separated from the traffic.
“Also cyclists represent a far higher proportion of
the traffic.
“A better comparison would be Canada where wearing cycle
helmets for under 16-year-olds, which is what we are calling
for, has been the law since 1996.
“In Canada, there has been no decrease in the number of
children cycling but there has been a reduction in the
number of head injuries.”
She said the charity used research from TRL, based in
Crowthorne, and had not come across anything suggesting
cycle helmets were ineffective protection for children.
She said: “This early day motion is just muddying the
waters. The important issue is about protecting children
from injury.”
Cycling MP Peter Bottomley has tabled a spoiling amendment
to Ms Griffiths’s motion recognising that cycle helmets are
likely to reduce the incidence of deaths and head injuries
and calling on cyclists groups and the Department of
Transport to make it known widely.
--
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
