R
Richard Burton
Guest
The following article appeared in today's Times. There is a very small reward for anyone spotting
the similarities between this article and the DfT's campaign about helmets. And I mean small!
"June 19, 2003
Boys snub uncool cycle helmets By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
TEENAGE boys are risking their lives by refusing to wear cycle helmets because they
consider them "uncool", a study has found.
The use of cycle helmets has risen among every other section of the population in the
past eight years but has fallen from 16 per cent to 12 per cent among teenage boys,
according to Department for Transport figures.
Boy cyclists are five times more likely than girls to have serious accidents but only
half as likely to wear a helmet.
Three child safety charities have now joined forces to call on the Government to make
helmets compulsory for children under 16. The Child Brain Injury Trust, Headway and the
Bicycle Helmet Initiative believe that teenage boys will be persuaded to wear helmets
only if a new law is passed.
Angela Lee, the chief executive of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative, said: "Teenage boys
are under tremendous peer pressure not to wear helmets in case their friends laugh at
them. If there was a new law obliging them to wear a helmet, then they would no longer
need to justify themselves."
One child under the age of 16 dies every week in Britain of head injuries suffered in a
cycling accident. A further 60 suffer serious head injuries. Children under 16 account
for half of all cyclist head injuries.
Studies have shown that at least 75 per cent of head in- juries would be prevented if
the cyclist were wearing a helmet. But cycling groups say that forcing people to wear
helmets would make them less likely to cycle and undermine efforts to get people out of
their cars and on to bikes. Cycling fell by 40 per cent among children in Australian
states in the early 1990s after helmets became compulsory.
David Jamieson, the Road Safety Minister, said that he was reluctant to consider a new
law on cycle helmets because it would be difficult to enforce. "It is very worrrying
that only one in eight boys wears a helmet, but a new law would criminalise a lot of
people for going about their everyday activity," he said."
anyone wishing to reply to this garbage may do so by emailing [email protected] .
for the record, most of the claims made by BHIT and others in this article are
demonstrably untrue e.g.the claim that one child dies every week from head injuries
sustained whilst cycling, the actual figure from 2001 (latest available) is less than
half that. Why does anybody still believe anything those t*****rs say?
the similarities between this article and the DfT's campaign about helmets. And I mean small!
"June 19, 2003
Boys snub uncool cycle helmets By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
TEENAGE boys are risking their lives by refusing to wear cycle helmets because they
consider them "uncool", a study has found.
The use of cycle helmets has risen among every other section of the population in the
past eight years but has fallen from 16 per cent to 12 per cent among teenage boys,
according to Department for Transport figures.
Boy cyclists are five times more likely than girls to have serious accidents but only
half as likely to wear a helmet.
Three child safety charities have now joined forces to call on the Government to make
helmets compulsory for children under 16. The Child Brain Injury Trust, Headway and the
Bicycle Helmet Initiative believe that teenage boys will be persuaded to wear helmets
only if a new law is passed.
Angela Lee, the chief executive of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative, said: "Teenage boys
are under tremendous peer pressure not to wear helmets in case their friends laugh at
them. If there was a new law obliging them to wear a helmet, then they would no longer
need to justify themselves."
One child under the age of 16 dies every week in Britain of head injuries suffered in a
cycling accident. A further 60 suffer serious head injuries. Children under 16 account
for half of all cyclist head injuries.
Studies have shown that at least 75 per cent of head in- juries would be prevented if
the cyclist were wearing a helmet. But cycling groups say that forcing people to wear
helmets would make them less likely to cycle and undermine efforts to get people out of
their cars and on to bikes. Cycling fell by 40 per cent among children in Australian
states in the early 1990s after helmets became compulsory.
David Jamieson, the Road Safety Minister, said that he was reluctant to consider a new
law on cycle helmets because it would be difficult to enforce. "It is very worrrying
that only one in eight boys wears a helmet, but a new law would criminalise a lot of
people for going about their everyday activity," he said."
anyone wishing to reply to this garbage may do so by emailing [email protected] .
for the record, most of the claims made by BHIT and others in this article are
demonstrably untrue e.g.the claim that one child dies every week from head injuries
sustained whilst cycling, the actual figure from 2001 (latest available) is less than
half that. Why does anybody still believe anything those t*****rs say?
