Transcript from BikeBiz
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5728
DAVID SINCLAIR, Fife division, FOR THE MOTION
"I have to declare a competing interest, I sit on the Board of
Science.
"I was thinking of dropping this, it's a water melon, on the floor, to
show how effective a helmet is but health and safety suggested that if
the melon does splatter I've got problems...
"My division was divided on this motion and I've been told by my
division to propose this motion in as neutral way as possible. [Laugh
from audience].
"Cycling helmets, we all know, are effective cheap devices that save
lives and cycling accidents.
"This is incontrovertible.
"The motion recognises we need to move along the road to compulsion
some time in the future.
"This debate is about the rights and responsibilities of our society
versus the rights and responsibilities of the cyclist in our society.
"It includes the loss of the cyclists' freedom if he is forced to wear
a helmet versus the real risk of death or permanent brain injury if he
doesn't.
"And the effect on friends and family and, indeed, doctors and
healthcare workers who come face to face with the aftermath.
"I hope in the debate we do not get many nanny-state jibes from
well-intentioned Lycra-clad freedom fighters.
"Remember, remember, the compulsory use of seatbelts was made law in
1981. As part of a caring profession you wouldn't want that law
repealed.
"I also hope we're not told by jobbing career politician [doctors] of
the surveys around the world showing accident reduction [sic] after
helmets were introduced.
"Believe me, after the time this motion went in, I've been scouring
the net and all the surveys are flawed in some way or another, mainly
by confounding factors.
"In my summing up I will tell you how I am going to vote, for the
adults for I am truly undecided on this point, but in all honesty I
cannot remain neutral in the case of children, so, sorry, Fife.
"I firmly believe we have a duty, in the public interest, to try to
ensure the safe arrival of our cycling children into normal adulthood.
"Our society accepts children are unable to give informed consent so
we legislate for them in various ways. For example, we force them to
go to school, we force them not to have sex, we force them not to have
the vote. I shall vote for the compulsion of helmets for children
because they have not the power or informed reason and because of
their soft, developing brains and squashy skull."
RICHARD KEATINGE, North West Wales division, AGAINST
"Compared to the huge health benefits of cycling this motion may seem
trivial, After all there are relatively few deaths or injuries to
cyclists. It may seem harmless, after all how much harm one centimetre
of expanded polystyrene actually do? It may seem a useful protection,
it's been described as uncontroversial.
"None of these things is true.
"Cycling is the best buy in health. Cyclists have a death rate about
40 percent lower than non cyclists. Obese cyclists are rare.
"Helmet laws - wear a lid or get off your bike - powerfully discourage
cycling, especially amoing teenagers.
"Every enforced helmet law has been followed by a steep drop, of about
30 percent, in cycling.
"Helmet laws are a grave threat to health.
"Danger? Well, it's real. The hourly rate of injury is about the same
for cycling as pedestrians and motorists. That's about one serious
injury per 3000 years of cycljng. Serious injuries are not that common
and the majority of them are due to motor vehicles.
"One centimetre of polystyrene won't do you much good if you get hit
by an HGV.
"No helmet law has shown any effect on the proportion of head injuries
to cyclists.
"Helmets laws actually don't work.
"After all, we're talking about one centimetre of polystyrene intended
to be crushed and absorb the energy of a one metre fall. This is
hardly relevant to most serious injuries.
"I've been shown broken helmets with the comment, 'This helmet has
saved a life.' In most cases the foam wasn't even crushed. Helmets are
far more fragile than even children's heads. Most broken helmets have
simply failed.
"To repeat, helmet laws don't work, for either adults or children.
"This motion calls for an intervention which fails to reduce head
injuries, which gravely harms health by reducing cycling and which
even strangles a few children on their own helmet straps.
"We have not had a thorough review of the evidence. Until we do, we as
a scientific association, I suggest, have no business passing this
motion.
"If we do pass it, we will be faced with loud and well reasoned
opposition from organisations which should be our friends.
ANDREW WEST, no constituency listed, FOR
"I've been working in emergency medicine for 20 years. I've lost count
of the amount of times I've had to repair head and forehead
lacerations and abrasions.
"I think two or three times I'd had to refer the patient to the
plastic surgeons to find some way of covering the exposed bone. These
are all patients who have come off their bikes one way or the other.
"I feel that, I take that, I accept that injury to the brain, depends
how you define head injuries but injuries to the brain not affected a
great deal by helmets but helmets do protect the shredding of the
scalp. I feel that we should support this motion as it protects the
scalp even if it doesn't protect much else.
DAVID DEAN, medical students committee, AGAINST
"I always wear a helmet but wear it correctly. Most children and
adults I see wearing helmets, wear them like this [helmet is pushed
back off Dean's head]. This motion should be addressing educating
people how to wear a helmet so that those who choose to wear a helmet
wear it correctly.
"Focus on benefits of cycling not forcing punitive measures on
cyclists which will discourage cycling and which don't address the
real issue and that's that car drivers need to be more considerate of
cyclists.
SIMON MINCOFF, JVC, FOR
"Cycling can be dangerous. Personally, I want to protect the contents
of my bonce and that's why I wear a helmet and I wear it properly,
over my forehead. I don't want to be an organ donor.
"I know I look like a wally with my cycle helmet on, we all do, but as
I say I'm cycling for my health and I want to look after myself.
Please support this motion."
PETER WARD, Gateshead, AGAINST
"Most people in this room will not be regular cyclists. The Transport
Research Laboratory's research has found that cycle helmets are much
more highly regarded amongst motorists than cyclists. And only 22
percent of cyclists wear them regularly.
"Every single vulnerable road user lobbying group, including RoSPA,
every single cycling group in Britain, and in Europe, oppose a cycle
[helmet] law. If the BMA would like to project an image of being
anti-cycling, go ahead and pass this.
"Cycle helmets are designed to absorb impacts similar to a fall from
one metre at 13mph. They are not designed to protect against collision
with vehicles.
"The biggest contribution the BMA could do with this is to support
cycling, join with cyclist's lobbying groups and help us increase
cycling.
"The BMA's own position on this should be 'if a helmet gets you
cycling, wear one. If a helmet puts you off, don't wear one.' Here's
for a pro-choice BMA."
PROFESSOR SIR CHARLES GEORGE, chairman of the committee, FOR
"Er, the first point is 2002, 594 children and 1801 adults were killed
in road related traffic accidents. The second point is that actually
there are controled-trial studies that were reviewed by the Cochrane
Colloboration and they reckoned the reduction in brain injury was by
65 to 88 percent.
"Of course, the Board of Science continues to lobby for other ways of
protecting children and adults from injury by safer cycling
environments and so on."
[EDITORIAL NOTE: Why did Sir Charles list ALL deaths from all traffic
cause and not just the small number of deaths from cycle accidents?
Here's what anti-compulsion campaigner Guy Chapman has to say about
the 88 percent stat: "I suggest the following litmus test: any
submission which advances an efficacy figure of 85% or 88% should be
discounted. These figures come from a single study and were revised
downwards in 1996. Continued use of the higher figure indicates either
insufficient research or a deliberate attempt to mislead."]
SAM EVERINGTON, Deputy Chair of Council, FOR
"Two things I want to add. We've had an enormous amount of letters
about serious injuries caused by not using helmets.
"The second thing I wanted to add, to mention, was the parallel to the
boxing ban. The thing that really put the issue of brain damage caused
by boxing on the agenda was a call for us to ban boxing. That has
enormous power in terms of generating interest in the whole issue of
these sort of injuries. So the point I would like to make, keep in
mind the strength of calling for some sort of compulsory use of
helmets on the impact that will have of bringing the whole issue of
cycling and cycling safety to the public. I would possibly suggest to
you that it wasn't until we generated this debate that this hit the
headlines."
VOTE
Cards waved in air. Looks too close to call but both motions carried
with statement from platform there had been a "reasonable majority."
At this there's murmuring from the floor. "Yes, it is carried," said
disembodied voice from platform. Earlier in the day, motions with
close votes had been put to an electronic vote, not so for helmet
compulsion.
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 CHS, Puget Sound
