Skull and cross-Bone#

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:56:00 +0000

I think I like not having Galloway as an MP any more, although I am forced to admit that as the only non-LibDem MP to sign the EDM on the Highway Code changes, he wasn't entirely useless. Sent this off yesterday to Meg Hillier -

My attention was recently drawn to the Bill introduced by your colleague Mr Peter Bone (MP Wellingborough) "to require persons of 17 years and under to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle", and reading his speech in Hansard I am concerned at some of the claims he makes.

The only statistic he quotes for helmet effectiveness ("85%") is taken from a small study in 1987[1] in Seattle, which has been widely criticised[2] (some would say "discredited") and in fact has even since been revised by its authors. Without wishing to go into any detail about the specific arguments (there are people on both sides with axes to grind) we would be better to consider instead the much larger "before and after" studies undertaken in countries that have already introduced mandatory helmet laws[3] (whether for children or for all cyclists) and there we find that in all cases the number of cyclists has dropped since the law was introduced, and often by an amount that dwarves any drop in fatalities/injuries - i.e. it's statistically more dangerous to cycle in those places than it was before! Mr Bone's claim to have "researched the issue extensively" seems to ring a little hollow if he has not considered these points. Offering his six-year-old as a counterexample is hardly a serious response.

As an MP in Hackney you doubtless already take a certain pride that this Borough has one of the best reputations for cycling in London (see for example the 3rd October Evening Standard report from Andrew Gilligan[4]) and are aware of the basic premise that the best way to improve cycle safety is to encourage more cyclists on the roads - other road users become more aware that they should look out for cyclists. Furthermore, as we're so often being reminded of the perils of obesity and the sedentary lifestyle it seems foolish - to me, at least - to discourage children who want to enjoy this form of outdoor exercise.

Of course, helmets can protect against some injuries (I recently broke one myself, as it happens, and expect that I would have suffered a nasty lump on the back of the head if I hadn't been wearing it) even if not quite to the extent that Mr Bone claims, but it is important not to get the issue out of proportion, and to me the far greater risk is that we put children off cycling by this well-meaning but misguided attempt to improve their safety. We have to look beyond the hyperbole and the "common sense" to examine the actual facts, and the facts of this issue are not clear-cut enough to justify legislation that may have the opposite effect to that intended.

I would be interested to hear your response.

Daniel

References: (of course, everyone has a point of view, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle)

[1] Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 1361-7.

[2] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/d1131.pdf summarises the criticisms

[3] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/d1096.pdf from the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation, summarises the effects of mandatory helmet laws in countries that have them

[4] http://www.hackney-cyclists.org.uk/new.htm (3rd October) and scan of the article itself at http://www.hackney-cyclists.org.uk/standard_hackney_city_cycling_feature_2-10-7_screenres.jpg

It's somewhat depressing that going by their respective voting records on ID cards/anti-terrorism/Iraq I'd actually prefer to be represented by Peter than Meg

Am I turning into a Tory, or are they? It gets hard to tell.