I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:
I note that you have signed Early Day Motion no. 1783. Please be aware that it contains
factual errors:
"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"
According to the DfT's published statistics, in 2002 there were 4,809 child cyclist injuries of all
severities, to all parts of the body, of which 594 were serious or fatal. The figure of 28,000
"serious head injuries" is in excess of the total reported cyclist injuries, all ages, all
severities.
"recognises that by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of such head injuries could be
prevented"
The authors of the study from which the 85% figure is taken have since published much lower
estimates following criticisms of the methodology and sample used. Even with the lower numbers this
study is not considered reliable, mainly due to sample bias (it also "proves" that helmets reduce
leg and torso injuries). This has been documented by John Franklin (lesberries.co.uklesberries.co.ukOpen ↗),
author of the advanced cycling manual Cyclecraft, published by The Stationery Office.
No real-world population has ever demonstrated even one tenth of the claimed reductions in head
injuries following introduction of a helmet law, claims which range from 16% up to the 85%
erroneously quoted in the EDM. Most populations record a substantial drop in numbers cycling, with
an equivalent reduction in numbers injured, leaving the injury rate the same. Some populations
indicate a worrying rise in injury rates.
Nor is that the only source of contra-indication. Casualty rates for cyclists and pedestrians have
historically tracked each other closely. An investigation of these trends over twenty years, a
period during which helmet wearing rose by up to 50% in some areas, shows no measurable
differential. Similar studies in New York, analysing only child pedestrian and child cyclist
casualties, reaches the same conclusion: although by the end of the study period over 40% of child
cyclists were wearing helmets, their casualty rate had varied exactly as the pedestrian casualty
rate. The helmets had no measurable effect.
This is so counter-intuitive that it took me a long time to accept it. As a parent of young children
who are keen cyclists you can imagine that I am not inclined to take such things on trust. It is a
real puzzle, and as far as I am aware the Government has not yet commissioned any research to
establish why it is that widespread use of cycle helmets consistently fails to realise not just the
claimed benefits, but indeed any measurable benefit whatsoever.
What is clear, though, is that embarking on a course of action when such an enormous gulf exists
between the claimed benefits and the actual effects in real populations would be foolish. It
demands at the very least a thorough investigation of the reasons why the claimed benefits have
never been realised in practice - those who do not learn from their mistakes are, after all, doomed
to repeat them.
"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."
BHIT admits that 90% of child cycle injuries occur off road (by implication on private land).
The proposal would only affect those riding on the road, the vast majority of whom are in any
case not children (one presumes that Government is not intending to force use of personal
protective equipment by private individuals on private land, as this would set a very
far-reaching precedent indeed).
Road crashes are of course a concern. But cycle helmets are designed to protect in single vehicle
crashes at speeds up to about 12mph. As soon as a motor vehicle is involved, any crash will almost
by definition exceed the design parameters of any commercially available pedal cycle helmet. Read
the manufacturers' disclaimers.
So we have come from "28,000 children" via some statistics which not even their authors now
support to a call to force primarily adult cyclists riding, for the most part, in a completely
different environment, to wear a helmet to protect them against something it is not designed to
protect against.
"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"
Can we really describe their work as "excellent?" Undoubtedly they mean well, but excellence implies
very high standards and a thoroughly thought-through agenda. I do not seek to discredit BHIT, but I
would take issue with any description of them as "excellent." For example:
- BHIT continue to publish the 85% claim, despite the fact, of which they must by now be fully
aware, that not even its authors now support it. This is not just misleading but actively
dangerous: impressionable youngsters may be persuaded that they can engage in more dangerous
behaviour than they otherwise would, and that a helmet will protect them from the consequences of
foolishness. This is not "excellent."
- BHIT have claimed in the press that if all children wore cycle helmets it would save the NHS £2
billion per year. According to the Office of National Statistics the NHS spends £1.5 billion per
year treating children under 16 for all conditions, injuries and ailments. It is not possible for
child head injuries preventable by cycle helmets to yield BHITs claimed savings. This is not
"excellent."
- BHIT have claimed in the press that helmets do not deter cycling, and that the substantial
reduction in numbers cycling in Australia post- law was due to a reduction in the legal age for
driving by one year. This, too, is incorrect. The drop in adult cycling was around 20% (and the
drop in teenage cycling around 45%). This is not "excellent."
BHIT is a single-issue campaign group which has consistently said that it will have achieved its
objective when every cyclist wears a helmet. They have never attempted to establish whether helmet
compulsion would yield better results than, say, a programme of good quality roadcraft training in
schools. This tunnel vision may be acceptable for a pressure group but not for a legislature. No
crash is caused by failure to wear a helmet, and compulsion will not prevent a single crash. As such
their campaign is wholly focused on the symptoms, introducing a "cure" which should be rendered
entirely redundant by a successful campaign targeted on the causes of the problem. A cure, moreover,
which is proven to carry with it at least one undesirable side-effect: substantial reductions in the
numbers cycling.
