ReplyThis is version 1 - version 2 is here. Version 2 was sent.
To describe those who oppose helmet compulsion as "anti-helmet" shows a lack of research: like CTC, my position is easily found out on my website. I am opposed to helmet compulsion because every time it has been tried the result has been a drastic reduction in cycling and no improvement in head injury rates. The one thing which is known to improve cyclist safety is more people cycling, and helmet laws do the opposite. That’s also why CTC were unhappy about Cyclesense: what does a website covered with X-Rays of skulls do for the image of cycling as a safe and healthy activity?
Every single cycling body in the UK is opposed to compulsion, including the traders who make money selling helmets. As are the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, among others. And this was a particularly bad bill. Do your readers believe that riding a tricycle is so dangerous that parents should be guilty of a crime if they allow their children to do so without a helmet?
I am of course aware of the opinion piece in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by admitted helmet advocate Aziz Sheikh. Lacking as I do the certainties of the zealot, I read a great deal of research. I am also aware of the basic statistical error in his referenced research which shows that helmets are 189% effective, each helmet worn providing protection for a non-wearer as well (or is that another inconvenient "out-of-context" soundbyte?).
Given that there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use, we must view helmets as a distraction from the real business of cycle safety. Single-issue pressure groups appear to believe that wearing a helmet is the first, best thing a cyclist can do for their safety; perhaps this is because they sincerely believe the research they quote which says that helmets are more able to prevent brain injury than cuts and bruises.
To characterise the campaign against compulsion as "irrational, obsessive, offensive and relying on soundbytes" is an amusing reversal of the truth. We are not the ones obsessed with the single issue of helmets, after all. The whole point of making an informed choice is to get all the information first; both sides are presented at http://www.cycelhelmets.org. As to offensive, the only people who get offended in my experience are those who don't want you to know a helmet-sceptical viewpoint even exists.
Finally, on the specific case of Troy Parker: I have seen the Coroner's statement. What killed Troy Parker was not failure to wear a helmet, but riding a bicycle with broken brakes off the pavement into the path of a car. A sobering thought, to be sure, as is the well-documented fact that cycle helmets are simply not designed for crashes involving cars. |