Angela Lee - 31 Jul 2003

This letter by Angela Lee, a follow-up to her letter of 26 June is quite illuminating. Notice the demonstration of unshakable conviction and outright rejection (using only proof by assertion) of points raised. For example, she describes as "laughable" the idea that "sensible precautions" deter cycling, but the sole demonstrable effect of enforced helmet laws worldwide has been exactly that: to deter cycling (Robinson, 2003).

From the Reading Chronicle, 31 July 2003

"Helmets are plain common sense"

I was hoping Mr G Chapman's letter (Chronicle, July 17) would not reflect the usual, outdated arguments to suggest wearing helmets somehow contributes to a decline in the benefits of cycling, but it did.

The notion sensible precautions reduces the number of people cycling is also laughable, as he is probably aware.

Given the choice of driving a car or riding a bicycle, a young person would opt for the car.

This was the reason why in Victoria, Australia, the number of young adults riding bicycles declined - the government merely reduced the legal age for driving a vehicle at the same time as it introduced mandatory helmet use.

Australians have accepted wearing a bicycle helmet as normal practice, as we have accepted the compulsory use of seatbelts.

I suggest Mr Chapman studies the other countries which have introduced compulsory hemlet-wearing, rather than a 12-year-old event.

I am sure he will find his arguments are not so sound.

The same goes for risk compensation. Mr Chapman is, again, arguing for adult cyclists. I made it very clear to whom and why we advocate helmet use, as he put it: "I nailed my colours to the mast".

It appears he also agrees with me. "Helmets do appear to provide some protection for some children, and I fully endorse encouragement of children to wear them."

He then raises the fact that 90% of child cycling accidents occur off the road.

The issue of people's lives and the quality of people's lives should not be reduced to trite statements as those made in his letter: "The more survivable the crash is the one which never happens"; and "Cycling on the road skillfully and as part of the traffic is a safe, healthy way to travel."

Is Mr Chapman really suggesting cycling is risk-free?

It never has been and never will be. He forgot to mention an accident , which is by definition not intentional, can cost your life or may result in brain damage.

I think the skilful cyclist Joseba Beloki who, in the Tour de France, skidded at 50mph on unexpected wet tar and ended up with many broken bones, was thankful that when his head hit the ground he was wearing a helmet.

There is one way to avoid portraying cycling as dangerous, and that is for people to recognise a helmet reduces the risk of head injury in an accident, and to wear one.

If all children wore one, my job would be done,m and a great many lives would be saved, thousands of children could be spared long-term care and the NHS money freed up could become available for other medical and health care needs. I have yet to hear a rational argument for not wearing a helmet.

I would like to see Mr Chapman's argument applied to explain to the family of a brain-injured child that it was right not to take precautions.

Accidents do not discriminate between one persona nd another, skilled or otherwise.

For comprehensive analysis on the safety function and benefits of helmets, see the Department of Transport website www.dft.gov.uk

ANGELA LEE