Alan Meale re EDM 1783

A discussion of EDM 1783, which fell without debate when the 2003 session was prorogued.

Dear Mr Meale,

Early Day Motion 1783

As you may by now be aware, you have been misled by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust. The figure they gave you for serious cycling-related head injuries in children is actually the figure for all head injuries. The correct figure is 1,200, not the 28,000 they claim.

The figure of 85% of head injuries preventable by helmet use comes from a study whose authors have since published amended, much lower figures. BHIT are aware of this, having been informed by several correspondents, including John Franklin (author of Cyclecraft, the advanced cycling manual). I do not know why they continue to use the incorrect figure.

In addition, between 80% and 90% of child cyclist injuries occur as the result of off-road play and would therefore not be covered by the type of legislation BHIT propose. They acknowledge this but evidently chose not to inform you of this significant fact. I do not know why not.

The inaccuracy of these claims is, I regret to report, symptomatic of BHIT’s general approach. For example, they have claimed in the press that compulsory helmets for children would save the NHS £2bn per annum. Combining ONS and census data gives a total annual NHS spend on children aged 4-16 of around £1.5bn for all causes, one third less than BHIT’s claim for cycling related head injuries alone.

BHIT also dispute the fact acknowledged by TRL, the BMA and others that helmet laws deter cycling. They have claimed that the one third drop in numbers cycling in Victoria, Western Australia, following compulsion was the result solely of a change in the legal age for driving. My correspondent in Victoria informs me that the principal effect of the change in regulations was to make it more difficult for young drivers to obtain a licence, and in any case the drop in adult cycling levels was variously recorded at between 20% and 36% - a fact of which any student of the Victoria helmet law can scarcely fail to be aware, still less if they are a dedicated campaigner.

Claims for helmet effectiveness are simply not matched in real-world populations. The figures for cyclist head injuries in New Zealand, Australia and British Columbia show no reduction following helmet laws despite increases in wearing rates from typically 40-45% to 85-90%. While there is no credible evidence of any injuries saved by helmet use there is a considerable body of evidence supporting the conclusion that increased levels of cycling reduces the casualty rate. Helmet compulsion is a public health own-goal, and the indications are that it may be a road safety own-goal as well.

Given that BHIT are based in Reading and Jane Griffiths (Reading East) is chair of the all party cycling group, it would have been more logical for them to approach Ms Griffiths to sponsor any EDM. I believe it is significant that they did not. I regret that they have misled you, and through you sought to mislead Parliament, and I would hope that you would see fit to amend your EDM at least to remove the inaccurate information