Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it

[Steady rider]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_law_Bill
Briefing paper added.

A cycle helmet Bill in Parliament on the 7 June https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3472/stages provided brief reasons to support a helmet law. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... leHelmets)

Back in November 2015, my then 15-year-old constituent, Oliver Dibsdale

is referred to after he suffered a head injury.

One reason stated,

In support of mandatory wearing of helmets, a 2016 review and analysis of previous research, undertaken by Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton, drew on data from 64,000 injured cyclists. They found very large protective effects from helmets, estimating 85% and 88% reductions in head and brain injury respectively for helmeted cyclists relative to unhelmeted.

The Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton study claimed a lower benefit.

Helmet use is associated with odds reductions of 51% for head injury, 69% for serious head injury, 33% for face injury and 65% for fatal head injury.

The 85% and 88% figures came from a unreliable 1989 USA Seattle study https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html.

Further Postscript – support for study withdrawn by Government agencies
In June 2013, US federal agencies The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided that they could no longer justify citing the claim by this research that bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85%. The agencies had been challenged under the Data Quality Act to show why they ignored later research, none of which had produced such convincing results. (GGW, 2013)

Research for the UK Department for Transport had previously decided that the claims made by this research could not be justified. (Hynd, Cuerden, Reid and Adams, 2009)

In 2015 the 85% and 88% claims were reported to overestimate their value by 400%, see, https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _warranted


In 2017 published research found the Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton claims to be unreliable.

Weaknesses with a meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets. Feb 2017

https://trid.trb.org/view/1491227
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... le_helmets

The Bill presented used claims that the USA and DfT do not consider suitable.

There are also good reasons to oppose a helmet law with some details will be added below. Hopefully Cycling UK can consider the best approach and the MPs supporting the Bill take steps to advise other MPs the claims made are not reliable.

[PH]

It's a ten minute private members bill, please make that the most time it's given. It isn't going any further because there isn't government support and even if there was there isn't time in the parliamentary schedule to bring it about.

[Steady rider]

The second reading is listed for November.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3472/stages
The MPs have provided misleading and unreliable information to Parliament.

Mark Pawsey, Judith Cummins, Dan Carden, Mr Peter Bone and Dr Luke Evans present the Bill.

[axel_knutt]

In 2017 published research found the Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton claims to be unreliable.

Olivier's got form for cooking the books:
https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k

[mattsccm]

Stuff any research, It is nowt to do with anyone else if I choose to supposedly endanger myself.

[PH]

The second reading is listed for November.

Apologies, I thought this was the second reading. It's customary for Private Members Bills to get through the first reading, if there were enough support and there was the parliamentary time, the government might promote it. As upthread, neither of those are going to happen. Campaign against such things all you like, I hope Cycling UK has better things to do with it's time.

[diapason]

Some years ago, an MP called Eric Martlew tried to bring in a compulsory helmet Bill. It appeared to be going well until an enterprising journalist discovered that Martlew was being 'sponsored' by an organisation called 'BHIT' (Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust), a consortium of helmet manufacturers. After that, the bill sank without trace - other than helmets were subsequently known as 'Martlehats'.

[Jdsk]

When trying to understand the issues an MP might turn to this briefing from the House of Commons Library:

"Active Travel FAQs":
https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... N01097.pdf

Jonathan

[yakdiver]

But but it keeps my hair in place.....and no I'm not having a hair cut

[pjclinch]

Some years ago, an MP called Eric Martlew tried to bring in a compulsory helmet Bill. It appeared to be going well until an enterprising journalist discovered that Martlew was being 'sponsored' by an organisation called 'BHIT' (Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust), a consortium of helmet manufacturers. After that, the bill sank without trace - other than helmets were subsequently known as 'Martlehats'.

BHIT weren't a consortium of helmet manufacturers, but they did have a somewhat... Johnsonian relationship with the truth. The founder and driving force was a paediatric nurse called Angela Lee and struck me as an example of someone who'd Seen The Light and wouldn't let evidence to the contrary stand in the way. She was good at emotive campaigning, and while not knowing for sure I think it's quite likely the BMA's remarkably badly researched change of heart in the Noughties was in large part down to BHIT's work.
The BMA press release had a bullet point figure of over 50 under 16s killed a year, which was referenced to a paper in a nursing journal by an "A Lee" and looked wrong to me. I downloaded the figures from DfT and over the previous decade there was one outlier year of over 50 but a minimum of 18 and a mean in the 20s. I pointed this out to the BMA, who removed the bullet point but kept the reference! That all did rather look as if they hadn't checked their facts and had blithely swallowed a dodgy claim hook, line and sinker.

BHIT did re-brand themselves as Cycle-Smart a few years ago but, thankfully, seem to have disappeared.

The Martlew bill probably ultimately sank for the same reason these thinsg usually do in the UK. The DfT, despite their enthusiasm for promotion, aren't keen on requirement and think it's a bad idea as it stands a high chance of denting cycling numbers. They point this out to the minister du jour who reports it to parliament, the government doesn't support and it withers on the vine.

That's even more likely this time around as Active Travel England are up and running and headed up by people with Clue and minister Jesse Norman also knows the score.

Pete.

[Pinhead]

Stuff any research, It is nowt to do with anyone else if I choose to supposedly endanger myself.

If you suffer injury then I hope you will NOT expect me or others to foot the NHS bill for your recovery, you pay it

I would like to see charges made on ALL people who suffer injury through their own selfishness, smokers, drinkers, non cycle helmet wearing cyclists, non seatbelt users, climbers, Mbikers in plimsoles.

I remember saying in a pub years ago "Smoking will be banned in all pubs etc, I was laughed at by the drinkers there

Retired NHS and proud

[Pinhead]

I remember years back a woman died in Tavistock where I lived, head hit the kerb, her cycle helmet was on the handlebars.

[mattheus]

Stuff any research, It is nowt to do with anyone else if I choose to supposedly endanger myself.

If you suffer injury then I hope you will NOT expect me or others to foot the NHS bill for your recovery, you pay it

I would like to see charges made on ALL people who suffer injury through their own selfishness, smokers, drinkers, non cycle helmet wearing cyclists, non seatbelt users, climbers, Mbikers in plimsoles.

I assume you take the same attitude to all other head injuries? Most in the UK occur without helmets (on stairs, in cars, in bathrooms etc ... etc ... )

[Stevek76]

I would like to see charges made on ALL people who suffer injury through their own selfishness, smokers, drinkers, non cycle helmet wearing cyclists, non seatbelt users, climbers, Mbikers in plimsoles.

Based on the collision stats you should also be including non helmet wearing pedestrians and a fairly good case for car occupants without crash helmets as well (yes, in addition to the current seatbelts and airbags).

And realistically anyone mountain biking (or indeed cyclocross and the enthusiast end of road cycling and gravel) is at far greater risk of injury than someone pootling to the shops without a helmet on so you can add an those on even with helmets and most sports on general.

It's been well demonstrated that general transport cycling without helmets is a net saving to the NHS since the health benefits of cycling from improved cardiovascular health etc vastly outweigh the occasional injury of which only a fraction may be reduced in severity by a helmet.

[drossall]

I would like to see charges made on ALL people who suffer injury through their own selfishness, smokers, drinkers, non cycle helmet wearing cyclists, non seatbelt users, climbers, Mbikers in plimsoles.

The evidence linking smoking to harm is stronger than that linking helmets to protection, by several orders of magnitude. Where would you stop?

And I have no interest in climbing. However, the NHS would tell us that activity in most forms is preferable to being a couch potato. So I'd like to know whether banning climbing would improve the life expectancy of its proponents, or reduce it. Most certainly, given that the medical profession tell us that the life expectancy benefits of cycling outweigh its risks by 20:1, anything that encouraged even some cyclists to give up would increase the bill for the NHS significantly.

Or perhaps you have one activity that you consider the best balance between health benefit and safety, that you would like to force the entire population to take up?