Helmets

[flecc]

However I do get driven around in minicabs fair bit and can say exactly the opposite is true - the faster/crapier drivers are far less likely to wear seatbealts. Another view would be that if they don't value their own life then why should they value anybody elses.

That's certainly true Harry, white van man sometimes being another example of the same sort of driver.
.

 

[nigel]

Nigel

well its certainly a intresting disscussion on to wear or not helmets. When i bought a bike with baby seat for my daughter i didnt think twice about a helmet for my grandson it just seemed common sense and the right thing to do. But for me i dont wish to wear a cycle helmet and i hope that never changes.

 

[PaulC]

Here in New Zealand it is compulsory for all cyclists to wear helmets, and 99% of cyclists comply with this. It becomes second nature after a while to put on a helmet as part of getting ready for a cycle (like seat belts in cars)
Given that NZ drivers are among the worst in the world, every bit of extra safety helps!
Paul

 

[lectureral]

I agree with those who think we have enough compulsion imposed by legislation. I thought you might like to see the response of the MP who proposed the Bill to an email of mine (BONEP@parliament.uk - it would be interesting to see if anyone else emailing got exactly the same response) (a Conservative by the way - I guess none of the parties does less government)

Dear

Thank you very much for your email.

There has been some criticism regarding my 10 minute rule bill to make it mandatory for children of the ages of 14 and under to wear a safety helmet when cycling on a public highway. Parliament gave leave to bring in the Bill on Tuesday 16 October 2007 without anyone speaking or voting against the Bill.

One of the issues I had to decide on before introducing the Bill was that we did not want yet another piece of nanny state legislation. As I am often regarded as a Conservative from the right of the Party, I was once labelled a son of Thatcher, and am a member of the Cornerstone Group, I certainly would not have introduced this Bill if I thought this was a piece of nanny state legislation. I made it clear in my speech that this legislation would not apply to adults or children over the age of fourteen who I believe are able to make their own decisions relating to this matter.

However there were a number of reasons why I thought it should be brought in for younger children. First whilst wearing a cycle helmet has increased by nearly 50% from 1994, increasing from 16% to 28%, for children in the same period the wearing of cycle helmets has actually fallen by over 20% to just 14%. Clearly whilst adults are understanding the need to protect themselves, this is actually not being extended to children.

Secondly there were 1600 children either killed or seriously injured over a three year period when riding their bikes. It is a fact that a child's skull depth is half of that of an adult and does not fully develop until their late teens so their natural protection is not there.

Thirdly, we have a duty to protect our children against dangers that they can not fully appreciate and I am sure if my Bill became law, children's lives would be saved and serious injuries woudl be reduced.

Yours sincerely
Peter Bone MP

 

[flecc]

Once again the favourite ploy of those who argue for more legislation on a road safety issue, the combining of deaths and serious injuries as one figure, in this case 1600.

In fact the grand total of annual child deaths on the roads from all causes is extremely small, around 0.0007% of our children which is virtually no risk at all. The number of those deaths from cycling is a tiny fraction of that, and the proportion of that tiny fraction which are due to head injuries is too low to sensibly express.

Add to that the fact that "serious injury" is classified as all those taken for treatment, including very minor scrapes and bumps which didn't need anything more than a plaster, and it can be seen that the 1600 is a completely worthless number.

In other words, this proposed legislation answers a problem that virtually doesn't exist. If we have a problem with child cycling, it's how to get them to ride bikes in the first place.
.

 

[allotmenteer]

Once again the favourite ploy of those who argue for more legislation on a road safety issue, the combining of deaths and serious injuries as one figure, in this case 1600.

I totally agree flecc. We see this everywhere from the Health and Safety brigade. Using their methods I dare say that several thousand deaths or serious injuries occur whilst doing almost anything. I think they bandy these stats around when they know they haven't got a case.

 

[frank9755]

What is disappointing to see that this MP is such a bad loser and can't take on board the arguments that were presented against his proposal. I'm afraid that he diminishes himself by writing a mail like this, protrayinig himself as the victim of irrational opponents who wouldn't listen to his gosple. I believe a bigger person would have used the email to explain why the decision was taken to go against his proposal.

Frank

 

[flecc]

It's always been my experience that campaigners on safety issues ignore facts that don't fit their agenda, though never missing a chance to selectively quote anything that does. They also often use exaggerations as in Peter Bone's use of a three year number rather than the accepted standard of one year.

No amount of opposing them with verifiable fact ever seems to deter them.

Fundamentally I think those who have an excessive perception of danger and the need for a protection are emotionally driven people, something which is clearly evident in so many of today's parents. They judge intuitively by their instincts regardless of reality.

I noticed the latest bit of lunacy in one school is that the children can no longer play football in football boots in case the studs hurt them.

In another case a few days earlier, a youngster sent to a local cricket coaching session returned dejected saying they were "chucked out". It was because the child turned up without full protection, helmet, full face guard, full pads and groin protection etc, the cost of which later found to be at least £150, a sum which the mother couldn't afford.
.