Are all MPs this 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

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




"2 Brains" Willets has come down on the side of authoritarianism and
paternalism. I am surprised but for this issue alone on principle I'd have
to consider my position as to whether its worth voting Conservative.

I would have hoped a Conservative would have greater faith in peoples' self
judgment and also in allowing people to suffer the correct consequences of
their decisions.

On 26 Jul, 08:22, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

I would have hoped a Conservative would have greater faith in peoples' self
judgment and also in allowing people to suffer the correct consequences of
their decisions.


It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!


didds

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
didds wrote:

On 26 Jul, 08:22, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

I would have hoped a Conservative would have greater faith in
peoples' self judgment and also in allowing people to suffer the
correct consequences of their decisions.


It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!


Has either of those been shown to have a detrimental effect at the
population level? I know that risk compensation and transfer of risk
to other parts of the population, along with changes in vehicle and
road construction, make it impossible to isoolate the various effects,
but overall ...

didds wrote:
On 26 Jul, 08:22, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

I would have hoped a Conservative would have greater faith in peoples' self
judgment and also in allowing people to suffer the correct consequences of
their decisions.


It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!


didds

Seatbelts - OK (1983, IIRC).

M/C Helmets? Not so sure. Wasn't that a late sixties (Wilson) change?

"didds" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul, 08:22, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

I would have hoped a Conservative would have greater faith in peoples'
self
judgment and also in allowing people to suffer the correct consequences
of
their decisions.


It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!


didds





The *******. I ****ing hate wearing a motorcycle lid. I'd rather where a
smile and some protective glasses only.

But that was their intention; to reduce the popularity of motorcycling.

On 26 Jul, 21:12, JNugent wrote:

M/C Helmets? Not so sure. Wasn't that a late sixties (Wilson) change?

I must confess to having to google this one being *simpe* so tender in
years *cough*.

1973 is the year I found... which would make it Ted Heath's govt
prior to Wilson's 1974 "double" win.

Could be it wasn't 1973 after all :-)

didds

Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
didds wrote:

On 26 Jul, 08:22, "Light of Aria"
wrote:

I would have hoped a Conservative would have greater faith in
peoples' self judgment and also in allowing people to suffer the
correct consequences of their decisions.


It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!

Has either of those been shown to have a detrimental effect at the
population level? I know that risk compensation and transfer of risk
to other parts of the population, along with changes in vehicle and
road construction, make it impossible to isoolate the various effects,
but overall ...

They had the expected beneficial effect at the population level: they
increased jobs and profit in the seat belt and motorcycle helmet
industries.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20080726144420.713fa7c1@bluemoon...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
didds wrote:



It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!


Has either of those been shown to have a detrimental effect at the
population level?


From the evidence I've seen, extremely unlikely. One piece of
pseudo-science sticks in my mind from the dissertation I've just done: a
county in Italy decided to pass a motorcycle helmet law, and the following
year's stats showed a considerable decline in motorcyclist deaths, about
40%, which was claimed as a huge success demonstrating how effective
motorcycle helmets are. Buried somewhat in the text, was the fact that
motorcycle registrations had fallen by about 40%, so the reduction in deaths
could have been due entirely to the fall in exposure, but there was no
acknowledgement of that.

"Risk" by John Adams is worth reading if you haven't already done so.

"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...



It was a conservative govt that introduced legislation for the
mandatory use of both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.!!!


didds


The *******. I ****ing hate wearing a motorcycle lid. I'd rather where a
smile and some protective glasses only.

But that was their intention; to reduce the popularity of motorcycling.


Indeed, and it worked. I suspect many of the helmet proponents to have
exactly the same intent, especially since so few of them are actually
cyclists.