Lobbying

Lessons learned about lobbying during opposition to the Martlew Bill.

Key points when lobbying your MP
First, check their status and history. Ministers, and those with official positions (such as private secretaries) don't sign EDMs. But if they are not a minster, see if they signed EDM1783, 2003 (last year's BeHIT one) and have they signed EDM774 (Active Travel) this year? If they have not, urge them to sign it. If they signed last year's BeHIT one you could perhaps sympathise with them for being duped and mention that you are sure that, now it has been pointed out that this contained significant factual errors, the resultant embarrassment this might have caused them may well have made them more sceptical. Experience indicates that in the first instance a short letter is best; if you are pushing at an open door there is not much point boring them, and if they are pro then you need to find out why in order to emphasise the arguments most likely to convince. Check their interests and make reference to them if relevant (e.g. child health, road safety). The less like a form letter or cut'n;paste job it looks the better, so mention your interest, your special interests perhaps as a school governor or youth leader, and bring up any points which will help you to connect. "When we met at X event you made it clear that you too are interested in child safety" and that kind of thing. For Labour MPs, especially those with a history of working in childrens' issues, the number one button to press is that of rising obesity. You can suggest that they "might not have been made aware" that every country which has introduced helmet compulsion has suffered dramatic drops in cycling, with the largest drop in every case being among teenagers. In Syndey the drop in teenage cycling was up to 90% as a direct result of the law, and has essentially not recovered. You can point out that this is why the BMA and Royal College of General Practitioners oppose the law. For Lib-Dem MPs you can appeal also to liberal principles: this Bill is interference of a type unwarranted by the scale of the problem. The traditional Liberal view is that the state should not interfere unless there is compelling evidence of risk or harm; in this case the lack of real-world data and the fact that the Government admits it knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use are good weapons.

For Tories, especially right-wing Tories, the "nanny state" button works well. What next, you can ask? Mandatory thermometers for babies' baths? The "problem" is a small one, and the solution is massively over the top. Is it worth requiring six million children to buy and wear helmets, in the process putting a very substantial proportion of them off cycling altogether, in order to save a maximum of twelve lives a year even if helmets did all that was claimed for them? And given that only 4% of helmets are worn correctly, according to a study in Paediatrics, it is hardly a surprise that they never do.

For all MPs the crucial point right now is that this Bill would sabotage the promotion of active travel and efforts to tackle obesity. The reduction in cycling wherever even promotion has been tried at a national level is well-proven. The reasons for this fall are well known too: helmet laws reduce the convenience of cycling and portray it as uniquely dangerous, a position which is flatly contradicted by BMA, and by both the severity ratios and numerical comparisons of walking and cycling injuries. 46,000 people died of coronary heart disease due to inactivity last year, and around a dozen children died of cycling-related head injuries. A good key phrase is that the bill will almost certainly shorten more lives than it could ever hope to save. An obese person lives nine years shorter than average, a regular cyclist lives two years longer (BMA). It is also worth pointing out that the bill is contentious, as many MPs are unaware of this, and, as perviously stated, the Government has admitted that it knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved due to increased helmet wearing. If your MP shows a genuine interestin promoting cycle safety, why not refer them to this article in the New Statesman which makes the point very eloquently that the easiest way to do that is to encourage more poeple to get on their bikes.

Enforcement problems
MPs will probably also be unaware that a TRL survey showed that 93.5% of children on urban minor roads are not currently wearing helmets, so any law would present massive enforcement problems (good one to go for with any MP with a history of promoting police issues, also possibly worth asking your local police to write to the MP along these lines). Pavement cycling and cycling without lights are already illegal. What is the level of compliance among teenage cyclists? Where is the evidence that the threat of a fine for their parents will be any more persuasive than any other argument employed to get them to wear a helmet? The way the law is drafted it will also raise the possibility of criminalising parents, teachers, bike shop employees, youth leaders and the like if a child removes their helmet even without permission. If you are a youth leader or teacher this is one to lead with: it risks criminalising you even if the child removes the lid without your knowledge. The most likely outcome, as presented by several people I have met who have youth leadership experience, is that cycling will simply be dropped as being too risky in terms of personal exposure to prosecution.

Organisations opposed
Finally, you might mention that the list of organisations opposed to compulsion includes: the British Medical Association the Royal College of General Practitioners the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents the National Cycling Strategy Board the Association of Cycle Traders (who actually sell helmets so are one of the few bodies who have anything to gain from the law) British Cycling CTC (the national cyclists' organisation) the Cycle Campaign Network

And indeed just about every body concerned with cycling or cycle safety. Among friends you can point out that BeHIT is a single-issue pressure group: as long as every cyclist wears a helmet they really don't care if this decimates cycling and has no effect on cyclist injuries, by their criteria they will have succeeded.

Surgeries
If you are going to see your MP make sure you take a copy of the CTC leaflet with you (http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC12ppleafleta_w.pdf) - your right to ride rep may have a proper printed one, or you can get one from Cotterell House.

Process
The Bill is to be read on April 23. On that day Oxfam are asking all MPs to be in their constituencies for a do of some kind. But... second on the menu is a Tory PMB calling for a referendum on Europe, so there may well be more MPs than we would like (if there aree too few MPs in the house, as there generally are, it only takes one to call for a count and the bill goes back to the ed of the queue and will die). If your MP is pro compulsion - join Oxfam and lobby for them to be in their constituency that day!

Other information and soundbites
This is an unworkable and draconian solution to a small and reducing problem. To the right is a list of links, including some example letters. I urge you to become fully informed before engaging in debate. There is not that much to know, but we have a difficult job because their message is simple and ours is complex nd counter-intuitive. They say "helmets save lives" but we have to get across a much more complex set of arguments. The things which we know work are obesity, due to reduced cycling, the small scale of the "problem" and the fact that the law is practically unenforceable. We are a very long way short of meeting the criteria DfT laid down for assessing when we should even consider compulsion. The point that five times as many child pedestrians die on the roads as child cyclists, and with a similar proportion of head injuries, puts the problem in context.