Patricia Pease - 31 Jul 2003

From the Reading Chronicle, 31 July 2003

It is highly commendable that Angela Lee responds to the various letters which attempt to denigrate the use of helmets among the uder-16s

It is transparent the authors of these letters will continue to argue helmets are ineffective at all costs, and that is contemptible.

The rationale for wearing a helmet is simple: it takes care of the "if only" scenario, and in doing so it will protect a great many people who recognise they are only human and therefore prone to errors of judgement and to encounter unexpected events.

I suggest Mr Chapman and the others are in denial of the dangers of cycling.

They fly in the face of the growing number of people wearing helmets; the outstanding results achieved by Miss Lee; the increasing number of bodies involved in healthcare endorsing the use of helmets; the rapid increase in the number of companies, institutions and organisations providing helmets and not least, the government advertising for the under-16s.

The only organsiation I know that is lobbying against helmet use is the Cycling Touring Club, which, in its newsletter, asked its members to write to all and sundry and confront people like Angela Lee and the government with its agenda.

I believe the recent letters result from the Cycling Touring Club's wish for more bicycles on our roads and for an enormous amount of revenue to be spent to support adult cyclists in urban conditions.

There is indeed a hidden agenda in all the correspondence opposing helmet use

These people do not want cycling to decline any further; yet that is the trend in Britain and globally.

We must recognise cycling is limited as a form of transport, and even more so when considered in the context of our changing and demanding lifestyles.

Mr Chapman goes as far as to suggest cycling will add ten years to your life. What value is that if you end up dead or incapacitated because you did not take the right precautions?

It strikes me cycle manufacturers are the winners in Mr Chapman's argument and people like Mr Chapman are a cost-effective way of lobbying on their behalf.

I put it to you the agenda is based on fear that, in the short term, if it became compulsory for helmets to be worn by adults the sales of cycles will decline further.

That appears to be the crux of the argument. It has nothing to do with safety, quality of life or concern for people's lives.

I would like to know what would be the cost of a cycling infrastructure which would still demand you wear a helmet, if you were to remain safe from harm in an accident.

PATRICIA PEASE