MPs simple?

Received the following from an MP who ought to know better, following my
letter to him about his appearance on R4 claiming that helmets were
amazingly effective. I'm not sure that he's got a single fact right, it's
obviously been given to him by BHIT, and he's so gullible he's swallowed it
whole. Should we be placing any faith at all in an MP who is so completely
gullible, and are all MPs quite so simple?

25 July 2008

Dear Mr. Burton,

Thank you for writing to me about cycle helmet legislation. I appreciate
your comments.

We clearly agree about the numerous benefits cycling can bring. Not only is
it beneficial to people's health, it is also an environmentally friendly
mode of transport. However, whilst encouraging cycling, we must also
consider public safety - especially the risk of death and disability from
head injury.

An increasing body of evidence suggests that injury can be substantially
decreased by using a cycle helmet when riding a bike. Case-control studies
indicate that helmets offer a great deal of protection. A systematic review
of five case-control studies, published in the Cochrane Library, found that
helmets reduced the risk by 63-88% for head, brain, and severe brain injury
among cyclists of all ages. Observational studies, looking at regional and
national time trends of head injury, show a strong correlation between
increasing helmet use and declining rates of injury. A study in the British
Medical Journal found head injury was sustained by 11% of non-wearers but
only by 4% of wearers the United Kingdom. I appreciate there is some
evidence which contradicts these figures. However, I think that the balance
tips in favour of cycle helmets.

The amount of people using helmets in Britain remains disappointingly low.
Evidence from the British Medical Journal suggests that, although there
could be a transitory reduction in cycle use after legislation for helmet
wearing, in the medium term the effect is likely to be negligible.
Furthermore, if legislation were to reduce rates of serious injury and
promote increased public confidence in cycling, the effect might even be to
make cycling more popular.

The figures from countries where helmets have been made compulsory are
significant. Australia and New Zealand, as well as the third of American
states and five provinces of Canada where the legislation has been
implemented, have all seen major increases in people wearing helmets. More
significantly, they have seen a decline in the number of head injuries and
fatalities from cycling accidents. It has worked for them. It might work for
us too.


Thank you once again for writing.

Yours sincerely,



David Willetts MP

burtthebike said the following on 25/07/2008 20:37:

(Quoting his MP)
The figures from countries where helmets have been made compulsory are
significant. Australia and New Zealand, as well as the third of American
states and five provinces of Canada where the legislation has been
implemented, have all seen major increases in people wearing helmets. More
significantly, they have seen a decline in the number of head injuries and
fatalities from cycling accidents. It has worked for them. It might work
for us too.

I thought the significant decline in head injuries was because of the
significant decline in the number of cyclists once the MHL was brought
in. Sounds like selective quoting of statistics to me.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On 26 Jul, 09:54, Paul Boyd wrote:
burtthebike said the following on 25/07/2008 20:37:

(Quoting his MP)

The figures from countries where helmets have been made compulsory are
significant. Australia and New Zealand, as well as the third of American
states and five provinces of Canada where the legislation has been
implemented, have all seen major increases in people wearing helmets. More
significantly, they have seen a decline in the number of head injuries and
fatalities from cycling accidents. It has worked for them. It might work
for us too.

I thought the significant decline in head injuries was because of the
significant decline in the number of cyclists once the MHL was brought
in. Sounds like selective quoting of statistics to me.


clearly the statitic quoted needs to be % of cyclists, or perhaps
better incidence per 1000 cycled miles or somesuch. And of course
similar statistics provided for car travel and walking. Maybe even
public transport.

I should imagine however that any such statistic would have so many
caveats attached to it as to eb almost worthless though. (due to the
almost impossible nature of collating total miles travel,led, or
number of cyclists/pedestrians/car journies etc)

didds (B.Sc. Computer Science & Statistics (Hons). III class
mind ;-)

burtthebike wrote:
Received the following from an MP who ought to know better, following my
letter to him about his appearance on R4 claiming that helmets were
amazingly effective. I'm not sure that he's got a single fact right, it's
obviously been given to him by BHIT, and he's so gullible he's swallowed it
whole. Should we be placing any faith at all in an MP who is so completely
gullible, and are all MPs quite so simple?

Just for the record, I got the same, word for word. I think he probably
got his unformation from the awful Cochrane Review rather than BHIT.

Anyone in his Havant constituency able to go and discuss the matter with
him at a surgery?

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.