Feedback via their forum:
"A pity that you, too, have been duped by BHIT (do they pronounce that Be-Hit?).
The stats they quote are wildly inaccurate, and the claims they make for the dangers of cycling are
grossly exaggerated. The 85% and 88% figures for injury savings which BHIT use were corrected by
their original authors in 1996, and no country which has introduced compulsion has ever experienced
any reduction in cyclist head injury rates or fatality rates. Indeed, the rates usually rise due to
the substantial reduction in the numbers cycling which always results from such a law.
90% of child cycle accidents happen in offroad play. How will a helmet law affect this? Of
course it won't.
But if your viewers really want to do something to save lives, why not concentrate on the 3,000
plus killed and tens of thousands seriously injured on Britain's roads every year? Road crashes are
the leading cause of death in the 5-16 age group, and the vast majority of those killed are not
riding a bike at the time. According to Police, 90% of injury crashes are the result of driver
error. Crashes are not caused by people taking huge risks, but by the taking of small risks very
large numbers of times.
Instead of trying to save one or two injuries at most by forcing cyclists to wear plastic hats which
have never produced the effects their advocates claim for them, why not encourage drivers to drive
carefully and obey the highway code? That would really save lives.
For a balancing view I suggest you contact John Franklin, probably the UK's foremost cycling expert
(www.lesberries.co.uk) or Jane Griffiths, MP, chair of the all-party cycling group. Both can rebut
BHIT's distortions line by line. And for a list of the reasons why BHIT are wrong check
www.ctc.org.uk and www.cyclehelmets.org."
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk "AndyP" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> They were "discussing" helmets on GMTV this morning. Have you got
yourself
> on there to present the other side of the argument tomorrow Guy?