Compulsory helmets again!

Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its
old tricks of making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the
numbers of children who would be saved by wearing one. The MPs have signed
an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the latest count,
by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.

"An attempt to introduce this was made previously by Bristol MP Jean
Corston - this attempt failed. However, this latest attempt already has 46
signatories (Jean Corston isn't one of them yet, nor any other Bristol
MPs) - the proposer is Alan Meale (Mansfield).

Attached is a copy of a letter from a CTC member to his MP re the EDM on
helmets which might be useful as a template if BCC members want to respond
similarly. The general thought is that this EDM will fail due to lack of
time, but might be being used as a marker for inclusion in a road safety
bill expected next year.

There is a lot of info generally about helmets - CTC are drawing up a
briefing linking the issue with cycling for health (stating that compulsory
helmet use would have a major detrimental overall effect on health) -
http://www.ctc.org.uk

Here is a website that has been recommended as a good resource for info
based on the American experience:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

Copy of letter sent to MP rejecting the Early Day Motion:

Could I draw your attention to the Early Day Motion on behalf of the BICYCLE
HELMET INITIATIVE TRUST and warn you that this motion is full of factual
errors if not deliberate deception. The motion states:-

BICYCLE HELMET INITIATIVE TRUST

That this House 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 and that sadly a number die as a result, whilst for
many others their accident will have a devastating impact on their life, in
many cases restricting their abilities to develop, learn new skills, make
new friends and face the lifelong challenges of the world; recognizes that
by simply wearing a bicycle helmet 85 per cent. of such head injuries could
be prevented; 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; and 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.
The 28,000 figure is false. This is the figure for head injuries from ALL
causes not from Cycling. The figure recorded from cycling is 1,200. In order
to save the other 26,800 perhaps all children should be made to wear helmets
at all times even in bed as falling out of bed can cause severe head injury.

The suggestion that 85% of these injuries could be prevented by wearing a
cycle helmet is an absurd fiction. Research by the TRL suggested a figure of
16% however there is also evidence from Australia that wearing helmets
increases the frequency of serious neck injuries.

There is no evidence that the compulsory wearing of helmets saves lives and
reduces injuries. Figures from Australia show that the compulsory wearing of
helmets brought about a major reduction in cycling particularly among
teenagers. The claimed reduction in head injuries was less than the
reduction in the amount of cycling so there was no reduction in the "Danger"
of cycling.

Promotion of cycle helmets based on exaggerating the risks of cycling has
the effect of reducing the amount of cycling. Compulsory use of helmets
would reduce cycling even more. Not only is this contrary to the
government's National Cycle Strategy but the consequent reduction in healthy
exercise will increase the number of premature deaths from heart disease.
Some time since the BMA came out against compulsion for this reason.

In Holland hardly anyone wears cycling helmets yet they do not have a
problem with cycling head injuries despite the vast number of cyclists of
all ages.

I am not against helmets all together. For stunt riding and racing they may
be appropriate though the protection they give is limited to low speed
impacts with flat surfaces. I am totally against compulsion in this area as
the case for them is at best unproven while the damage to cycling of
compulsion has been demonstrated in Australia and elsewhere.

So finally, I would ask you to reject this Early Day Motion and to warn your
friends of the falsehoods and dangers in it.

Regards"

In ,
Richard Burton typed:
Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back
to its old tricks of making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of
helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by wearing
one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has
been signed, at the latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda
Jackson, who I thought knew better.

To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783

(it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)

A

Ambrose Nankivell must be edykated coz e writed:

In ,
Richard Burton typed:
Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back
to its old tricks of making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of
helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by wearing
one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has
been signed, at the latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda
Jackson, who I thought knew better.

To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783

(it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)

A


At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but
still think it should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for
compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Ambrose Nankivell must be edykated coz e writed:

In ,
Richard Burton typed:
Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back
to its old tricks of making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of
helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by wearing
one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has
been signed, at the latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda
Jackson, who I thought knew better.

To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page

http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783

(it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)

A


OOO, just noticed the best bit, compulsory for bicyclists, not so for
tricyclists, so a jaunt to the cafe sans helmet would still be ok for me.
So on the great British tradition of "I'm alright Jack" ........

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

mae wedi ysgrifennu:

OOO, just noticed the best bit, compulsory for bicyclists, not so for
tricyclists, so a jaunt to the cafe sans helmet would still be ok for
me. So on the great British tradition of "I'm alright Jack" ........

AFAIK, helmets are compulsory for two-wheeled motorcycles but not for
three-wheelers, so this proposal would be consistent with that. Not that
there's any reason that it should be.

--
Rob

Wildly Out Of Date Excel VBA Programming Stuff from the Heart of Wales:
www.analytical-dynamics.co.uk/

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

"Richard Burton" wrote in message
...
Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its
old tricks of making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and
the
numbers of children who would be saved by wearing one. The MPs have
signed
an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the latest
count,
by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.

snip

Has anyone stopped to think of what would actually happen if this became "Da
Law" ?.....
I can't help thinking that it would probably be policed about as well as the
"not riding on the pavement" law and the "using lights at night" law.
Remember, we are all cyclists so don't really matter, therefore our precious
police time shouldn't be wasted by reinforcing any law that *might* be
beneficial to cyclists... (no offence intended to law enforcement there,
merely politicians and they can *all* go fcuk 'emselves ;-).
I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It won't be enforced
anyway so if you've got a particular stance with regards to this you can
carry on going helmetless anyway.....(just means you'll be a criminal in the
eyes of the law and join all those others guilty of victimless crimes that
the Govnt. seem intent on filling our jails with)...
Just my pointless 2 euro worth...
Dave ;-)

Ian wrote:


At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets,
but still think it should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am
all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

Seems a very reasonable position to me.

pk

"PK" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote:


At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets,
but still think it should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am
all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

Seems a very reasonable position to me.

Not really, as there is no real need for it, and a good chance that the
"28,000" "serious head injuries" are not done on public roads.
It strikes me as being a bit too much "something must be done", rather than
bothering looking into whether it makes much difference.

I note that the MPs want to vote to say that the house believes that helmets
prevent 85% of injuries and deaths.

So they must be a good thing eh? Who'd vote for turning kids into
vegetables?

mae wedi ysgrifennu:

I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It won't be
enforced anyway so if you've got a particular stance with regards to
this you can carry on going helmetless anyway.....(just means you'll
be a criminal in the eyes of the law and join all those others guilty
of victimless crimes that the Govnt. seem intent on filling our jails
with)...

All very well until some nutter in an SUV breaks both your legs and his/her
insurers fail to pay up because you weren't wearing compulsory safety
equipment.

--
Rob

Wildly Out Of Date Excel VBA Programming Stuff from the Heart of Wales:
www.analytical-dynamics.co.uk/

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

Dave wrote:

"Richard Burton" wrote in message
...
Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its
old tricks of making ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and
the
numbers of children who would be saved by wearing one. The MPs have
signed
an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the latest
count,
by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.

snip

Has anyone stopped to think of what would actually happen if this became "Da
Law" ?.....
I can't help thinking that it would probably be policed about as well as the
"not riding on the pavement" law and the "using lights at night" law.
Remember, we are all cyclists so don't really matter, therefore our precious
police time shouldn't be wasted by reinforcing any law that *might* be
beneficial to cyclists... (no offence intended to law enforcement there,
merely politicians and they can *all* go fcuk 'emselves ;-).
I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It won't be enforced
anyway.......

I beleive that to be a very naive view, and a dangerous one.
It may not be enforced by the police or similar bodies but it sure will by the
insurance companies.

If you are involved in a collision and injured (or worse), you would certainly
have any damages severely cut, perhaps to nothing.
Even if it was not your fault you will be seen as putting yourself deliberately
at risk from increased injury by flouting the helmet law.

As it is, motorists get away with near murder with derisory penalties.

If you were not wearing a helmet they could simply drive into you and claim you
should have been protecting yourself so deserve what you get. The bully will
have won.
Even if Mr Plod turns a blind eye, I fear the courts would uphold this view if
you were helmetless and this law were passed.

John B