Another letter in the Evening Post about cycle helmets, reproduced below,
with my response after. If anyone else feels like writing to the editor for
publishing on their letters page, feel free.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144961&command=newPage
11:00 - 15 July 2004 The other day I was driving through Winterbourne and
noticed children taking their cycling proficiency test. I was shocked to see
that some of the children were not wearing safety helmets.
I asked one of the helpers why this was so and they seemed taken aback and
said the children had left their helmets at home.
My grandson has just taken the same test at his school; he was not allowed
to take the test without a helmet.
I deplore the stupidity of the school in question in allowing their pupils
to take the test without the right attire.
My grandson, since passing his test, is allowed to ride his bicycle to
school - but only if he wears a helmet.
Surely the school in question should be ashamed of not teaching its pupils
the need to be safe on the roads.
I am glad my grandson does not got to a school where safety of the children
is not paramount.
I did think of writing to the school but I hope teachers read this letter
and take the appropriate action.
Jean Hodges, Kingswood.
Dear Sir,
Jean Hodges of Kingswood may have been shocked to see children taking their
cycle proficiency test without "safety helmets" but she obviously doesn't
know that they are purely decorative, as they certainly don't improve
safety. Nowhere in the world which has introduced mandatory helmets has
been able to demonstrate any improvement in the safety of cyclists. In
Alberta, where they introduced a law for children, the death and injury rate
doubled.
A great deal of nonsense is talked about the effectiveness of cycle helmets,
much of it spouted by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT) which has
been behind three attempts to introduce a law. Unfortunately BHIT are not
renowned for their honesty, and they still claim that cycle helmets prevent
85% of head injuries, a statement which is no longer even supported by the
people whose research it was based on. Incidentally, we are all helping
BHIT to publish their misinformation, as they receive funding from the
taxpayer.
All long term, large scale research into the effects of cycle helmets has
come to the same conclusion: there is no demonstrable safety benefit, and
some even show an increase in deaths and injuries. They also show that
helmet laws reduce the number of people getting healthy exercise. Is it
just coincidence that the levels of obesity in Australia have doubled since
they introduced mandatory helmets?
It is estimated that over 50,000 people a year in this country die
prematurely because they don't get enough exercise, but the government has
stated that it does not know of a single case where a cycle helmet has saved
a life. Anything which is likely to stop people taking regular exercise
should be considered very carefully, and if, as in the case with cycle
helmets, there is no demonstrable benefit and massive harm, why should
anyone insist that they be worn?
Almost all children who are killed whilst riding a bike are struck by a
motor vehicle, and cycle helmets are useless in those circumstances. The
manufacturers don't make that claim, but this has not stopped BHIT from
saying that they will protect you. If the manufacturers did so, they could
be challenged under the advertising laws, but because BHIT do not make
helmets, they can say what they like, whether it is true or not.
Jean's attitude is prevalent amongst drivers: "because I cause danger to
other people, they should be made to wear protection", rather than the
drivers taking responsibility for the danger they cause.
Those kids would be a lot safer if you drove less Jean, never mind wearing
useless helmets.
Richard Burton
--
cheers
Rich