Colin Breed MP has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for compulsory cycle helmet wearing for under 16 year olds. Most cycle campaigners believe this is not a good idea, for many reasons - some are listed below.

We have written to Ken Livingstone MP, London mayoral candidate who has signed this EDM - our letter is below.

I met you on Tuesday 3 November at the RoadPeace debate in St Thomas Hospital, and tried to convince you in the short time available that compulsory bike helmets either for children or adults are not a good idea at all. At one point you asked me to supply you with evidence to back my views. I am most encouraged by this - so many politicians seem unwilling to have their own views challenged.

I am therefore collecting evidence for you. The best should come from Dr Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute, though he is on holiday at the moment. I have left a message to ask him to send relevant papers to you as soon as he can. Meanwhile, may I recommend a book by Dr John Adams of University College London called "RISK" - all about risk compensation, which goes to the heart of this issue.

Helmet wearing is endlessly debated among cycle campaigners. Many of them wear helmets. Almost all agree that compulsion is not a good idea. The evidence, from Australia and others, is that the number of cyclists declines - not what we seek to achieve now (White Paper target is to double cycling by 2002, and double again by 2012). Fewer cyclists on the roads makes it more dangerous for those who remain, as motorists do not expect to see them.

Below are some views other than my own which I have collected from the urbancyclist-uk internet mailing list to which I subscribe. I announced on the list that I was planning to tackle you on this issue, and that provoked a number of comments which I enclose.

I hope to be able to send you more soon. My hope is that you will be won over by our arguments against compulsion, and remove your name from the EDM. I am keen to press you on this, given that you may well soon be Mayor of London. The London Cycling Campaign believes that cycling has a potentially huge role to play towards solving London's transport problems, but that compulsory helmet legislation will work against this objective.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours Sincerely, Richard Evans, Merton Cycling Campaign (a local group of the London Cycling Campaign)

======================

=======================

From: David Martin <david.martin@biotek.uio.no>

The vast majority of serious accidents involve collisions with cars. It is not the lack of a helmet that is a problem, it is the collision with a car. Solving the cause is more important than trying to sooth the symptoms. You may also wish to point out the benefits of having a law which will be widely flouted and lead to yet more disrespect for authority. It is unenforceable with the resources currently available.

===============

From: Richard George <richard@phase.org>

=======================

From: Charlie Lloyd <C.Lloyd@unl.ac.uk>

There is another point which should be brought out in talking/writing to MPs and the media. That is a "compulsory" helmet law is virtually unenforceable on under 16 year olds. You can't fine them, you can't arrest them. Once they realise they can get away with breaking such a law they could move on to other things. For these reasons the Police are opposed to a "compulsory" law.

======================

From: Hgrps@aol.com

Evidence is (statistics again) that car occupants would actually derive more benefit from wearing helmets in reducing head injuries ... but could you imagine compulsory helmet wearing for vehicle occupants? As it is some excellent video footage (taken down but not viewed by many at LCC conference) was broadcast on STV some 4 years ago, basically showing that in a typical rear end shunt between a test car and dummy on a bike the helmet was b****r all use.

Cycling is a hazardous activity - like any other mode of travel. To minimise the risk in most hazardous activity we undergo training and observe prevailing conditions before applying operating rules. The wearing of a helmet is actually a negative statement in many respects of dealing with the hazards - it abdicates from the fundamental task of performing the activity (cycling) with minimum exposure to the risks, and states an acceptance that the crash is inevitable.

=======================

From: jon ivar skullerud <jskuller@physics.adelaide.edu.au>

You might also mention that Oz evidence indicates that MHLs may even have had a detrimental impact on cycling safety (cycling has declined more than accidents).

Quote from Richard Stallard on the Bicycle Federation of Australia mailing list recently:

"A soon to be released WA report looking at the benefits and costs of helmet legislation (using the same basis as other road safety countermeasures) found no identifiable benefits and substantial costs to individuals and the community from the legislation. There is a risk that over-emphasis on helmets could be to the detriment of other (possibly more effective) bicycle safety initiatives."

===========

From: Tim Kirk <Tim@wobbegong.demon.co.uk>

Especially interesting research from NZ that indicates that helmets save minor injuries but are relatively ineffective against brain damage and serious head trauma (but most urban cyclists probably know that already...motorbike helmets are a completely different kettle of fish, but still no use in a major impact).

=====================

From: Glenda Cairns <Glenda.Cairns@general.monash.edu.au>

==========

From: http://www.btinternet.com/~P.Docherty/helmets.htm

01/04/98 My Response to the 'Diary of A Cycle Hemet Campaigner' article in the Guardian today. (Advocates Helmet Legislation for Under 16-s).

I write as a parent of two young children, a regular cyclist (who wears a helmet) and a GP with an interest in children's activity and fitness. I have just read the Guardian piece, 'Diary of a Cycle Helmet Campaigner'. I have previously seen some of your research - we often discuss cycling injuries at the Minor Injuries Unit in Selby where I work, and Veronica Gray, the Sister-in-Charge showed me some of your work a couple of years ago.

On one level I sympathise with your campaign. Whenever I see a cycling injury of any sort in a child it makes me angry. If I see or hear about a serious injury it makes me feel sick. I can see why you, particularly doing the job that you do, argue strongly for helmet -wearing, and I understand why you argue for compulsion. However, I have mixed feelings about your campaign, and I strongly believe compulsion is wrong. Here are my reasons.

1. In the conflict situation which exists between road traffic and bikes, you are totally wrong to expect the restrictive measures to reduce the danger to be accepted by the cyclists. This is tantamount to victim blaming. This is an all too common response, particularly from health professionals, and too easy when children are involved. There is major concern about the decline in health, fitness and freedom of children in the last few decades, largely through an (adult) obsession with cars/speed. You are right to target the danger, but you should aim at the CAUSE - motor traffic and the way vehicles are driven. (see Mayer Hillman's work on Children's Independent Mobility).

2.Helmets are only partly helpful at preventing injury in crashes and may generate a false sense of security both in the wearer and in passing cars. I've looked at a lot of the helmet evidence, and I think you would have to say that overall the evidence is mixed - although clearly they could reduce injury severity in certain cases.

3. You will have heard of the instances where the Police have attended major road traffic accidents, where a car has ploughed into cyclists, and the driver says to the Police - 'but they weren't wearing helmets'. I feel they can be an excuse for drivers to drive too fast near cyclists and that is certainly my own experience over the years.

4. Many of the strong helmet advocates will be car drivers who regularly break speed limits. They are uncomfortable about the danger caused but don't want to slow down. It is easier to pass the buck to the vulnerable road users - especially children. Perhaps if people obeyed existing laws on speed, you would have less cycling injuries in total - not just head injuries. Legislation for slower and enforced speed limits (e.g. 20mph HomeZones) would be far more effective in injury reduction (e.g. Slower Speeds Initiative).

5. It is easy in this country with its anti-cycling, anti-child culture to think of new laws to 'protect' children, often strongly influenced by the US (as if US culture hasn't done enough damage to children already!). If you have not already done so, I urge you to see, if you can, the pro-child and pro-bike cultures of New Zealand, Germany, Denmark and particularly the Netherlands. I've seen them and it is a stunning sight to see a Dutch school emptying at the end of the day, most of them cycling without helmets, healthy, happy and independent. That is the product of years of public policy designed to reduce road danger, not ameliorate its effects.

6. There is a lot of work and campaigning going on at present by Sustrans, the CTC, Friends of the Earth and others to try and reduce road danger. I sincerely hope that you campaign doesn't provide partial excuses for local authorities and others to not respond to this.

7. I have no doubt that a helmet law will reduce cycling, as it has in Australia. This will be particularly for those short journeys that we really should not be driving for. I live, on a quiet rural road, about 400m from my local shop. Any danger that does occur to my children is from drivers breaking the 30mph limit - why should my children have their mobility and freedom restricted - they are not the CAUSE of that danger; surely better to enforce lower speed limits with traffic calming.

In summary, I am with you in your aims to reduce the effects of road crashes/incidents. I oppose your methods whilst accepting that they are well meant and I am sure children's welfare is uppermost in your mind. You will meet opposition, particularly calling for compulsion, from many groups, but particularly from those who have been trying to work from within the health sector for a fitter, more active population.

Please consider working for a safer road environment, at least in parallel with you campaign. Particularly, for children's sake, consider campaigning for lower speed limits which are enforced.

Best Wishes,

Dr Paul Docherty

P.Docherty@btinternet.com

Disclaimer: These opinions are my own.