Following David Cameron's irresponsible failure to wear a cycle helmet, it has emerged that one of the leading campaigners for compulsory helmets is a Tory MP.
David Cameron was today “under fire” for choosing to cycle without a helmet. And, as the news prompted an online row about whether it is “sanctimonious” to highlight cycling safety, it emerged that one of the leading campaigners for compulsory helmets is a Tory MP.
Just weeks ago, Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, spoke out in favour of making helmets compulsory for children up to the age of 14:
“If somebody said 16 per cent of people who died in road accidents could be saved, you would bite their hand off … The savings to the NHS alone would be enormous … I believe individuals can make up their own minds whether they want to kill themselves. Youngsters can’t, however, and we have to do it for them.”
In January 2010, Bone asked a question in parliament about the Department for Transport’s assessment of the safety case for children to wear safety helmets. He received this response from Paul Clark, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DfT:
“The Department commissioned a research project on cyclists’ road safety, which included a new review of cycle helmet effectiveness.”
The review concludes that, assuming cycle helmets are a good fit and worn correctly they should be effective at “reducing the risk of head injury, in particular cranium fracture, scalp injury and intracranial (brain) injury for users of all ages but would be expected to be particularly effective for children”. The report that Mr Bone highlights also includes the results of a forensic case review of more than 100 British police cyclist fatality reports:
“[The] case review … highlighted that between 10 and 16% of the fatalities reviewed could have been prevented if they had worn a cycle helmet.”
It also found that helmets would be “particularly effective” for children.
Given the currently available evidence (highlighted by one of his very own MPs) of the safety benefits of wearing a cycle helmet, and the (uphill) efforts of safety campaigners to encourage children, in particular, to wear a helmet, David Cameron should be trying to set a good example. Instead, he is irresponsibly choosing to look good for photo opportunities, regardless of the message this sends to Britain’s young cyclists.
46 Responses to “Cameron’s failure to wear cycle helmet “irresponsible””
Who will Tychy support in the May election? « Tychy
[…] and voices being lowered over tea at the vicarage. Two days ago, LFF ran with the headline “Cameron’s failure to wear cycle helmet ‘irresponsible’.” David Cameron was indicted of “irresponsibly choosing to look good for photo opportunities, […]
Tony
I live in Western Australia and wear a helmet when cycling, thus complying with local laws.
However, the comprehensive statistical Australian evidence FAILS to show that helmet wearing whilst cycling significantly reduces the risks or either head injury or death, particularly in adults.
I challenge all those who propose compulsory helemt legislation for the UK to demonstrate stistical evidence that wearing a helmet will significantly reduce death or head injuries amongst cyclists.
stephen
Hi you are lucky to not live in Australia which is a total nanny state and everyone no matter where and of all ages is forced to wear a helmet.
I unfortunatly live in Australia and wish we had the option to ride without helmets here – i have a medical problem and find it is worstened when exercising with a helmet on so i have not been able to ride by bike unless i risk an expensive fine it really sucks – My advise is stay away from australia and it’s stupid laws.
I drove past 2 students last week one appeared to be getting a fine from the police for riding without a helmet ( she had a hair arrangement which probably would have not suited wearing a helmet ) – they were on a cycleway and probably just out for lesure ride around a park in no danger at all but the law treats people like criminals over here, so now i just drive everywhere it’s just not worth the effort to ride when you get treated like a criminal by the law.
You do not want this anywhere – keep helmets optional and keep your freedom of choice.
Burtthebike
Except that neither you nor Mr Bone MP appear to have bothered reading the report you rely on so heavily, and it doesn’t say what you think it does. Anyone familiar with such reports would immediately have realised that the conclusions were not based on fact, if only because of the language used in it, which was universally conditional: “assuming that…” “would be expected to…” “predicted that…..” “could have…” “may have….” “would be expected…..” and nowhere does it say cycle helmets can be shown to reduce the risk to cyclists. The authors themselves point out that all their figures for the protective effects of helmets are not based on evidence, merely their own assumptions “However, it should be remembered that there was no specific evidence to support these estimates”.
All the reliable evidence from over twenty years of helmet laws in Australia and New Zealand show that helmets don’t reduce the risk to cyclists. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than Mr Bone’s fairy stories.
Keith Elliott
But think….and know mine stop me from having a very bad headache why take the risk……