Bone in the house quotes "85%"

Bicycles (Children’s Safety Helmets)

Back to top
3.32 pm

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons of 17 years
and under to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle; and for
connected purposes.

From reading The Highway Code, one would think that it is already
compulsory to wear a safety helmet when cycling. It states that

“you should wear a cycling helmet which conforms to current regulations”.

Yet, that is not the law. It is, however, mandatory for children to wear
safety helmets when playing cricket or riding a horse. Why should they
not do so when riding a bike, the dangers of which are far greater?

My proposed Bill has received support from both sides of the House, and
I thank my fellow sponsors. When it was originally drafted, I proposed
that the upper age limit for the mandatory wearing of a cycle helmet
should be 17 years. However, having listened to representations from the
Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, the CTC—the cyclists’ touring club—and
other interested groups, I shall propose an amendment in Committee to
reduce the maximum age for the compulsory wearing of a cycle helmet to 14.

The issue was first brought to my attention as part of my “Listening to
Wellingborough and Rushden” campaign. In addition, my excellent and
informative local weekly newspaper, the Herald & Post, has been actively
campaigning for a change in the law. Lawrence John, the senior reporter
at the paper who has led the campaign, started a petition to make it
compulsory for children to wear cycling helmets when riding their bikes.

After researching the issue extensively, I felt that I needed to do all
that I could as a Member of Parliament to seek legislation further to
protect child cyclists. The Bill is designed to save lives and reduce
injuries, including very serious head injuries, and to save the NHS
millions of pounds of costs in treating and rehabilitating injured child
cyclists.

In 2006, child cyclist deaths rose by 55 per cent. In 2005, there were
20 deaths. Last year, there were 31 deaths, or nearly three a month. In
response to a parliamentary question that I asked of the Department of
Health, the Minister stated that, in a three-year period from 2003,
17,786 children aged 14 and under were admitted to NHS hospitals in
England because of injuries incurred while cycling. This is not a minor
matter. That figure does not include the many thousands who attend
accident and emergency, are patched up and then sent home, nor does it
include those who are admitted to hospitals in Scotland, Wales or
Northern Ireland. In the past three years, more than 1,600 children were
killed or very seriously injured when riding their bikes. The Bicycle
Helmet Initiative Trust estimates that 85 per cent. of head injuries to
child cyclists would be reduced or eliminated entirely if a helmet was
worn. A cycle helmet absorbs 12 mph of energy and reduces the energy
impact by that amount in all crashes.

One argument that I have come across against compulsion is that if a
juggernaut crashes into a child at 70 mph, a cycle helmet will not
prevent injury. Of course it will not, but that is not what I am saying.
I am saying not that children wearing a cycle helmet will emerge from a
crash scratch-free but that the impact of the crash will be reduced by
12 mph of energy, thus lessening injury and saving lives. That could be
the difference between a child having a serious head injury that will
require 24-hour care for the rest of his life and a child suffering a
minor concussion. For a child with a serious head injury needing
long-term rehabilitation, the cost has been estimated at £250,000 for
the first year alone. Children who have suffered severe head injuries
require a lifetime of long-term help at the cost of millions of pounds.
That, of course, ignores the pain and suffering of the victim and their
family. Their quality of life, and that of their family, suffers greatly
as a result of such an injury.

My Bill would not make it mandatory for those over the age of 14 to wear
safety helmets when cycling. Older children and adults can make up their
own minds about the risks involved. However, a child’s skull depth is
less that half that of an adult and only reaches full depth in his late
teens. Therefore, a child’s head has less natural protection than that
of an adult. Children are also less experienced cyclists than adults and
are more likely to have an accident when riding on the public highway.

Throughout my campaign, I have had meetings with the Bicycle Helmet
Initiative Trust, the CTC, RoadPeace and the Minister of State for
Transport. I was very encouraged by the meeting I had with the Minister
in June and welcome the Government’s independent investigation. I am,
however, concerned about its time scale, which could be up to two years.
I believe that we need legislation now to help to prevent further
serious injury and death to children when riding their bikes.

Last November, I presented to Parliament the petition organised by the
Herald and Post. I should like to praise the Herald and Post for all its
work in raising awareness in this field.

I have been presented with some arguments against my Bill and I would
like to take this opportunity to explain why I think those arguments are
not enough to prevent legislation from going through.

One argument against the Bill—often made with great force—is that it is
yet more legislation intended to turn our country into a nanny state.
Well, speaking as a right-wing son of Thatcher and a member of
Cornerstone, I am not known for supporting an enlargement of the nanny
state in any way, shape or form. This measure is not intended to dictate
to adults how they should live their lives. It is designed for children
who, at the age of 14 and under, are not able to take the decision for
themselves. When they reach 15, they will have the choice of whether to
wear a cycle helmet. I reiterate that I have no intention of bringing in
this Bill for adults or anyone over the age of 14.

Another argument against the Bill is that it will put children off
cycling. I can safely say that my six-year-old son, Thomas, has no
problems with wearing a cycle helmet when riding his bike—and what a
good job he is doing at it! [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] I see no
reason why the Bill would persuade other children to give up cycling or
not to take it up in the first place.

Many countries across the globe have introduced legislation to make it
compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets. In Canada, a study of the
level of cycling following such legislation showed that there had been
no reduction. Likewise, cycling rates are among the highest in the world
in Australia, where similar legislation was introduced 16 years ago. I
believe that if people oppose this Bill, they are actually saying that
children should not wear cycle helmets. It is either right or not right
for children to wear safety helmets when riding—and if it is right, we
should make it compulsory.

The Bill is about plain common sense. It is about protecting our
children. It is about saving millions of pounds for the NHS. It is about
reducing injury to children and saving their lives. I commend it to the
House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Graham Allen, John
Bercow, Mr. Geoffrey Cox, Andrew George, Mr. Philip Hollobone, Mr. Mark
Lancaster, Mr. Eric Martlew, Andrew Miller and Sir George Young.
Bicycles (Children’S Safety Helmets)

Mr. Peter Bone accordingly presented a Bill to require persons of 17
years and under to wear a safety helmet when riding a bicycle; and for
connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to
be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 186].

Martin Dann wrote:
The Bicycle
Helmet Initiative Trust estimates that 85 per cent. of head injuries to
child cyclists would be reduced or eliminated entirely if a helmet was
worn.

Dang, where does he get that statistic from?


A cycle helmet absorbs 12 mph of energy and reduces the energy
impact by that amount in all crashes.

He did not stud physics at school then.

One argument that I have come across against compulsion is that if a
juggernaut crashes into a child at 70 mph, a cycle helmet will not
prevent injury.

70mph juggernauts???
I thought they were limited to 56mph, with many limited to 50.




Of course it will not, but that is not what I am saying.
I am saying not that children wearing a cycle helmet will emerge from a
crash scratch-free but that the impact of the crash will be reduced by
12 mph of energy,

12mph of energy?


I was very encouraged by the meeting I had with the Minister
in June and welcome the Government’s independent investigation. I am,
however, concerned about its time scale, which could be up to two years.
I believe that we need legislation now to help to prevent further
serious injury and death to children when riding their bikes.

Lets not investigate the facts, let make laws.


Another argument against the Bill is that it will put children off
cycling. I can safely say that my six-year-old son, Thomas, has no
problems with wearing a cycle helmet when riding his bike—and what a
good job he is doing at it!

Many countries across the globe have introduced legislation to make it
compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets. In Canada, a study of the
level of cycling following such legislation showed that there had been
no reduction. Likewise, cycling rates are among the highest in the world
in Australia, where similar legislation was introduced 16 years ago.

Clever with word is he.


I
believe that if people oppose this Bill, they are actually saying that
children should not wear cycle helmets. It is either right or not right
for children to wear safety helmets when riding—and if it is right, we
should make it compulsory.

Choice?

Martin Dann wrote:

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I beg to move,
...
A cycle helmet absorbs 12 mph of energy and reduces the energy
impact by that amount in all crashes.

12 mph of energy? What's that then? I think Angie got away with
spouting that fallacy on TV once. :-(

It's really depressing that this keeps coming round, and so quickly.
Helmet threads on urc are dreary but this unceasing campaign shows how
necessary it is to keep on correcting misguided common sense postings
and restating the truth.

--
Dave...

Martin Dann wrote:
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I beg to move,

....

After researching the issue extensively

Who said politicians lie?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Discordianism: Where reality is a figment of your imagination

Don Whybrow wrote:
After researching the issue extensively

Who said politicians lie?

Heh, that made me smile too. Email I sent to my MP (Meg Hillier, should
get AAA points simply for her surname) follows:

------

My attention was recently drawn to the Bill
introduced by your colleague Mr Peter Bone (MP Wellingborough) "to
require persons of 17 years and under to wear a safety helmet when
riding a bicycle" and reading his speech in Hansard I am concerned at
some of the claims he makes.

The only statistic he quotes for helmet effectiveness ("85%") is taken
from a small study in 1987[1] in Seattle, which has been widely
criticised[2] (some would say "discredited") and in fact has even since
been revised by its authors. Without wishing to go into any detail
about the specific arguments (there are people on both sides with axes
to grind) we would be better to consider instead the much larger
"before and after" studies undertaken in countries that have already
introduced mandatory helmet laws[3] (whether for children or for all
cyclists) and there we find that in all cases the number of cyclists
has dropped since the law was introduced, and often by an amount that
dwarves any drop in fatalities/injuries - i.e. it's statistically
*more* dangerous to cycle in those places than it was before!
Mr Bone's claim that he has "researched the issue extensively" seems
to ring a little hollow if he has not considered these points.
Offering his six-year-old as a counterexample is hardly a serious
response.

As an MP in Hackney you doubtless already take a certain pride that
this Borough has one of the best reputations for cycling in London
(see for example the 3rd October Evening Standard report from Andrew
Gilligan[4]) and are aware of the basic premise that the best way to
improve cycle safety is to encourage more cyclists on the roads -
other road users become more aware that they should look out for
cyclists. Furtermore, as we're so often being reminded of the perils
of obesity and the sedentary lifestyle it seems foolish - to me, at
least - to discourage children who want to enjoy this form of outdoor
exercise.

Of course, helmets can protect against some injuries (I recently broke
one myself, as it happens, and expect that I would have suffered a
nasty lump on the back of the head if I hadn't been wearing it) even
if not quite to the extent that Mr Bone claims, but it is important
not to get the issue out of proportion, and to me the far greater risk
is that we put children off cycling by this well-meaning but misguided
attempt to improve their safety. We have to look beyond the hyperbole
to examine the actual facts, and the facts of this issue are not
clear-cut enough to justify legislation that may have the opposite
effect to that intended.


References:
(of course, everyone has a point of view, and the truth is probably
somewhere in the middle)

[1] Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the
effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989; 320:
1361-7.

[2] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/d1131.pdf summarises the criticisms

[3] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/d1096.pdf from the Bicycle
Helmet Research Foundation, summarises the effects of mandatory helmet
laws in countries that have them

[4] http://www.hackney-cyclists.org.uk/new.htm (3rd October) and scan
of the article itself at
http://www.hackney-cyclists.org.uk/s..._screenres.jpg

------

-dan

"Martin Dann" wrote in message
...
Bicycles (Children’s Safety Helmets)

Just composed a letter which I've sent to the Times. I doubt they'll
publish it, but if anyone else feels the same, then the more of us writing
to the papers explaining the real position, the better. Feel free to
plagiarise.

"Dear Sir,

I have read with despair and deja vu of the introduction of another
ten-minute rule bill in Parliament to make cycling without a helmet a crime,
the third such attempt in recent years, this time by Peter Bone MP.

I have no doubt that this one, like the previous two, is being orchestrated
by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT) a body in receipt of
considerable public funds. I cannot be alone in feeling disquiet that a
publicly funded organisation is lobbying for a change in the law, whatever
the evidence for such a law might be.

The fact is that the case for cycle helmets has been completely disproved by
the long term, whole population studies from countries with compulsory
helmet laws. The best that can be said is that helmets have no effect on
death or serious injury, and at worst, that they increase that risk. The
evidence that BHIT rely on, and still quote, has been peer reviewed and
found to be nonsense, and even its authors no longer support the figures
that BHIT use.

People who think that this is nothing to do with them might like to consider
that the only demonstrable effect of cycle helmet laws is to discourage
cycling, thus reducing the number of people getting regular exercise, and
that the countries with helmet laws are among the most obese on earth.
Thousands of times more people die from lack of exercise each year than do
cyclists, and a helmet law would be the biggest imaginable public health own
goal, shortening many lives, saving none, and costing the taxpayer vast sums
of money.

Of considerable concern is that no less than three MPs have been persuaded
by a single issue pressure group to forward their cause. Given the number of
MPs in Parliament, it is not surprising to find that there is one so
gullible that they would accept at face value the statements of such a
group, but that there are three so endowed does not augur well for the
governance of this country."

In message
wrote:

Don Whybrow wrote:
Email I sent to my MP (Meg Hillier, should
get AAA points simply for her surname) follows:

------

My attention was recently drawn to the Bill

[snip]



Excellent letter, Dan.
--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

wrote in message
...
Don Whybrow wrote:

Many thanks for posting that Dan, I've nicked most of it for my own MP. As
well as asking if there are any sanctions that can be taken against an
organisation which is in receipt of public funds campaigning for a change in
the law. And if there is any action that can be taken against an
organisation which continually misleads MPs with untrue information.

I also asked about the coming DfT review, and whether it was going to be
independent and rigorous, who would be in charge and when it would report.

Martin Dann wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:
The Bicycle
Helmet Initiative Trust estimates that 85 per cent. of head injuries
to child cyclists would be reduced or eliminated entirely if a helmet
was worn.

Dang, where does he get that statistic from?

email to my MP, who was sympathetic on the highway code issue.


Dear Mr Williams, I would like to draw your attention to the ten minute
bill introduced by Mr Peter Bone.

The purpose of this bill is to make it compulsory for those under 15 to
wear a helmet whilst cycling in this country. The only consequence this
bill would have would be to discourage children cycling.
In his speech Mr Bone claims that a helmet law in Australia had no
effect on cycling, yet in reality the amount of child cyclists fell by
approximately 40%, with a similar trend amongst adults. [1]
Such a decrease in cycling in this country would have a detrimental
effect to the health of the population, many of whom are already overweight.

Mr Bone cites that there has been no reduction in cycling in Canada
following similar laws, however these laws are not enforced.

Mr Bone justifies this bill by a claim that 85% of head injuries would
be reduced or eliminated by wearing helmets. This claim is at best
misleading, and at worst a downright lie. The figure of 85% comes from a
small study in the USA in the mid '80s, that has since been shown to be
seriously flawed, and has been revised by it authors. [2][3]


Population level studies around the world show that the more people
cycle, the less accidents they have per mile cycled. Introducing a
helmet law will just make cycling less safe.

Interestingly recent research has also shown that people drive closer
and more dangerously to helmeted cyclists. [4]

To sum up, the passing of this bill will only be a bad thing for cycling
in this country, and detrimental to the health of many of the population.


[1] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2024.pdf
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2025.pdf
[2] Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A
case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N
Engl J Med 1989; 320: 1361-7.
[3] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

Martin Dann wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:
The Bicycle
Helmet Initiative Trust estimates that 85 per cent. of head injuries
to child cyclists would be reduced or eliminated entirely if a helmet
was worn.

Dang, where does he get that statistic from?

email to my MP, who was sympathetic on the highway code issue.

Can I borrow some of that for my MP?