ReplyThis is version 2 - version 1 is here. This is the one which was sent.
I envy L Watsham's evident certainty. I would love to be able to deal with the mass of contradictory evidence on cycle helmets by simply ignoring the bits I don’t like. Instead I must read each new study, pro or anti (compulsion, that is -- there is no anti-helmet movement). There is so much evidence, and it is so often contradictory.
There is, in fact, no known case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use. So I, and CTC, join the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the National Cycling Strategy board, and indeed every cycling body in the UK, in opposing compulsion.
My understanding is not always perfect: I missed the conclusion in the most widely quoted study that helmets are more effective against brain injury than against cuts and bruises, a fascinating if thoroughly improbable idea. I did see Aziz Sheikh’s opinion piece in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. He made a basic statistical error -- according to his figures helmets are 186% effective, each helmet worn providing protection for a non-wearer as well (reference: Injury Prevention, BMJ Publishing).
We don't enjoy rebutting bogus claims, we'd rather get on with the real business of cycle safety, but we have no option because the best way to make cycling safer is to get more people cycling, and experience shows that helmet laws and scare tactics achieve the exact opposite -- with no improvement in injury rates. We have to take it seriously because, unlike many leading helmet advocates, we are cyclists: it is our safety on the line. So we continue to advocate informed choice.
Informed, that is, by all the evidence, not just the bits we might like. |