CTC press release:
BMA helmet decision flawed say doctors
The British Medical Association has today delivered a serious
blow to the promotion of cycling as a healthy form of transport and
recreation, based on an inadequate and unscientific debate, flawed
evidence and against views of its own members working in public health
according to CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation.
The BMA Annual Representatives Meeting (ARM) voted to press
for a ban on cycling without a helmet, for people of all ages after a
debate lasting only five minutes during which many doctors responsible
for public health strategy were not allowed to speak.
Dr Stephen Watkins, chair of the BMA’s Transport and Health
Working Group and Director of Public Health at Stockport Primary Care
Trust, said:
“Almost everywhere cycle helmets have been made compulsory
cycling has fallen by 25-40%. The BMA Board of Science’s own
calculations indicate that, if we could promote cycling as the main
mode of transport for journeys under 5 miles, thousands of lives would
be saved by reducing heart disease. This contrasts with just a
handful of deaths which might be saved by cycle helmets.
Last time the BMA’s own public health conference considered
the issue it rejected it by a large margin. It is depressing that the
BMA has now adopted this unscientific stance that will cause great
harm.”
During the debate, Sir Charles George (the Chairman of the
BMA’s Board of Science) was accused of misinformation by some
delegates for presenting as evidence a study of helmets that has been
widely criticised for a lack of transparency and which ignored the
fact that the findings were totally at variance with all available
“real-world” population-level evidence. The UK Government knows of no
case where increased helmet-wearing has ever been linked to
improvements in cycle safety and no other significant evidence was
presented to the meeting.
The issue of cycle helmets is highly contentious, with all of
the UK’s major cycling organisations being strongly opposed to
compulsory helmet-wearing. The main concern of cycling organisations
is the overwhelming evidence from other countries that such laws lead
to substantial reductions in cycle use, thereby undermining the
realisation of its health and other benefits.
In 1999, the BMA itself voted against compulsory
helmet-wearing. Its report issued at that time noted not only that
helmet compulsion would undermine cycle use, but also that the
protective value of helmets is limited (they are only designed to
withstand impacts up to around 13mph, equivalent to falling from a
stationary riding position, and that most fatal and serious cyclist
injuries involve impacts with motor vehicles at impact speeds above
what helmets can withstand), and that such a law would lead to
enforcement difficulties. Key road safety organisations such as the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the
Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (PACTS) are also
opposed to helmet compulsion for similar reasons.
CTC Director Kevin Mayne said:
“This decision could not come at a worse time. Right now we
really ought to be working closely with the BMA and other health
professionals to encourage more and safer cycling as a way to tackle
Britain’s obesity epidemic. The doctors who voted for
helmet-compulsion may have been well-intentioned, but actually their
stance will do far more harm to the health of the nation than any
benefit which helmets might have achieved.”
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
