Martlew Letter Zog

Dear Ms Drown,

I have discovered that Eric Martlew MP is to introduce a private member's bill in the current session which would criminalise any children who fail to wear a cycle helmet and leave their parents liable to a fine. I am a keen cyclist with the Swindon CTC section (I live in Wanborough) but am well beyond the age group where I would be affected by the bill. However, I believe that the bill, if passed, would be extremely damaging for the following reasons: There are some useful references at the following websites: http://www.cyclehelmets.org (analysis of statistics - tends to be sceptical of helmets) http://www.bhit.org (the lobby group for helmets supporting the Bill) http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/BHIT_Bill (put together by a cyclist and elegantly refutes the BHIT statistics) http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/helmets.html (John Franklin's - author of "Cyclecraft" - resume of the evidence) http://www.ctc.org.uk (the CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club) To declare my own personal interest, I do own a helmet but only wear it in icy conditions where I might slip. I have no confidence in its ability to protect me in a collision with a motorised vehicle so I ride with an appropriate degree of caution. As an asthmatic I find that the chin strap tends to aggravate breathing problems on cold days, and I have seen too many helmeted cyclists suffering from sunstroke to wear it in hot conditions! I would urge you not to support the Bill as it will set back the Government's laudable attempts to increase the use of sustainable transport by decades - even the car-crazy Conservatives have avoided this particular banana skin. Yours sincerely,
 * the most immediate effect would be a drastic reduction in cycling by children, either because they do not own a helmet or because they do not like to wear them (peer pressure is very important in this age group). This will have consequences for child obesity and fitness as well as traffic, because they will expect to be driven on some journeys that they might previously have made by bike.  Where helmet laws have been introduced in Australia and New Zealand a drop in cycling of up to 40% has been observed.
 * the efficacy of helmets is unproven. Their design is highly compromised because, unlike motorcyclists, pedal cyclists generate a lot of heat so the helmet must be light and allow a lot of airflow.  The best helmets are only designed for impacts up to 20km/h (12.5mph) which means they are practically useless in any accident with a motorised vehicle.  Australian studies suggest that the death rate per cyclist has actually increased since helmets were made mandatory.  It is not clear why this is, but they do not seem to have saved lives and may actually have increased the risks slightly.
 * Mr Martlew has been lobbied by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT) which uses distorted and plainly false data to support its campaign. The Guardian has already had to correct its online article on the private member's bill after these errors were pointed out to them.
 * Helmet promotion is damaging to cycling as a whole because it portrays it as a dangerous activity. In fact, cycling is safer than walking! Helmets are most vocally supported by non-cyclists who think we should all wear them - in order to assuage their own fear of mowing down and killing an unhelmeted cyclist.
 * The CTC, the largest cycling organisation in Britain, is firmly against helmet promotion or compulsion. With over 60,000 paying members, they have a strong vested interest in keeping them alive!

(real name concealed to preserve Usenet nick!)