Martlew Letter David Martin

First paragraph. Who you are, why you are writing and a request for a response. Don't make counter-intuitive claims even if they are correct. Stick to facts. Don't copy this letter. You can get ideas from it but you should send a different letter written in your own style. I have majored on the 'cycling of any form is good. This bill wants to ban cycling' theme. It is NOT about for/against cycle helmets.

Dear Mr Ross, I noticed with dismay the publication of the private members bill by Mr Eric Mayhew MP, the member for Carlisle. As one of your constituents I am writing from my position as a father of three young children, as a cyclist with a strong interest in road safety, and as a medical research scientist who has examined this area informally for many years to ask you to confirm that you will be opposing this misguided and essentially counter-productive legislation. This is a bad bill. It aims to ban cycling by those under 16 not wearing helmets. Is cycling without a helmet really so dangerous that it should be banned? Cycling is a form of exercise and transport enjoyed by a significant proportion of the population. As children and young adults I and many of my contemporaries enjoyed the freedom and health benefits of cycling around London, well before the invention of cycle helmets suddenly rendered it apparently unsafe. On the contrary, cycling is relatively safe compared to other forms of transport and the overall health benefits of cycling are well known. I look forward to my children and I enjoying the countryside around Dundee without the risk of becoming an accidental criminal by not wearing a cycle helmet. Wearing a cycle helmet may be a prudent decision for children though they clearly cannot protect against all head injuries and their effectiveness is often vastly overstated. Nothing in current legislation prevents children from wearing helmets if they or their parents so wish it. For this bill to claim to provide for helmet wearing is somewhat underhand. Instead it will make very little productive difference to child safety and will actually have significant negative social effects. A better focus would be on reducing accidents involving child cyclists. In fact, the British Medical Association has strongly opposed helmet legislation in the past as they correctly conclude that cycling, even without a helmet, is far more beneficial than not cycling, leading to better health and a longer productive life. Helmet legislation, where it has been introduced has led to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists whilst head injury rates have remained the same, a surprising but real observation on whole populations that brings into question the claims for substantial benefits from helmet wearing. Increasing cycling has been a target of successive governments for many years and is seen as a positive step by road safety professionals. In the area of Reading where helmets have been aggressively promoted by the BHIT pressure group, cycling amongst children has diminished considerably, and overstatement of the perceived danger of cycling has led to children being banned from cycling to school. In a nation that is seeing an epidemic of obesity related diseases we need to encourage more children to take up exercise. Cycling as transport and leisure is an excellent way to do this. It addresses the issues both of exercise and health as well as easing congestion. Criminalising cycling is not a good method for achieving the governments objectives of an increase in the proportion of journeys carried out by bicycle. Habits picked up in childhood are more likely to remain through life. Which would the government prefer? An increase in the proportion of the population using a safe and healthy method of transport or an increase in the number of people who are in the habit of being scofflaws. Passing bad legislation that is essentially unenforceable generates a disrespect for the law in general. Around 20-25 children are killed each year cycling on Britain's roads. The majority are killed by injuries a cycle helmet could not prevent. Many of the accidents would have been prevented by simple cycle training. Whilst any number of deaths is too high, putting this in context the figures for 2002 show that 72 children (age 0-15) were killed as pedestrians and 79 were killed as car users, compared to 22 on cycles. The proportion of accidents for which a cycle helmet may have made a difference is higher in pedestrian and car use (around 40% dying of head injuries) compared to cyclists (around 20%). The bill is therefore misguided in just selecting cyclists as a target group for legislation when, if the proponents were truly interested in child safety, they would target the majority of injuries, or indeed the causative effect behind these injuries. This bill will have profound negative social consequences. The requirement to wear cycle helmets will reinforce the misconception that cycling is inherently dangerous. This will lead to a reduction in the number of children cycling and an increase in the trend towards a society suffering from obesity related disorders. The bill will be widely ignored by the same class of scofflaws who ignore traffic rules (if they were ever taught them in the first place), ride bikes that are not mechanically sound and ride at night without lights. The person who just wants to get from A to B and is a responsible road user will be turned into a criminal, making more work for our already overstretched police force. This bill will also lead to blaming the victim for injury. The majority of serious cycle accidents (90% of deaths overall) are collisions with motor vehicles and are the fault of the driver not paying sufficient attention. This bill will give an excuse to the negligent motorist that a cyclist was 'asking for it' by not wearing a helmet, even though helmets do nothing to prevent accidents. If this bill is passed, making persons such as a cycle hirer (as the owner of a bicycle) liable for the actions of a client over whom they have no control, then I will find it impossible to hire bicycles for my family when on holiday or for visitors. The risk of being penalised by the action of their clients will be too great to sustain a business. Teachers and education authorities In summary, if you vote for this bill you will be voting for the criminalisation of a healthy and beneficial activity, increased prevalence of obesity related diseases and the discouragement of cycling amongst children and the consequent knock-on effects amongst adults. Far from improving life for children, it wil diminish the quality of life, both through childhood and on throughout adulthood. I strongly encourage you to vote against this bill. A vote against this bill is not a vote against cycle helmets. A vote against this bill is not a vote against child safety. A vote against this bill is a vote against bad legislation that will have a negative effect on society. There are many ways in which legislation could help the safety of child cyclists. Encouraging schools to provide proper on-road cycle training throughout the top end of primary school and secondary schooling would be extremely beneficial. Closer regulation of motorists (of which I am also one) would also help dramatically. The single most beneficial legislation for cycle and pedestrian safety has been the drink-drive law. The recent focus on speed reduction is also helping and has saved more cyclist and pedestrian deaths than are projected by even the most optimistic estimates put forward by those promoting cycle helmets. I look forward to hearing from you and will be glad to provide further information should you so require it. Yours sincerely, Dr David Martin University of Dundee