May I suggest you edit it down to two or three paragraphs? Its very detailed and thorough but no
MP will wade through a tome of that length and the complexity of many of the arguements will
pass them by
Tony
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 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
> (
http://www.lesberries.co.uk), 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.