Sir, I heard with despair and déjà vu 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. This one, like the previous two, is being orchestrated by the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT), a body in receipt of considerable public funds.

The case for cycle helmets has been completely disproved by long-term, whole-population studies in countries with compulsory helmet laws. The best that can be said is that helmets have no effect on death or serious injury, and, the worst, that they increase that risk. The evidence that the BHIT relies on, and still quotes on its website, such as “Research has demonstrated that helmets can reduce the severity of head injuries by up to 85 per cent” has since been rejected by many other researchers.

The only demonstrable effect of cycle helmet laws is to discourage cycling, thus reducing the number of people getting regular exercise. The countries with helmet laws are among the most obese on earth.

Thousands 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 fewer than three MPs have been persuaded by a single-issue pressure group to forward their cause. Such gullibility in Parliament does not augur well for the governance of this country.

Richard Burton
Bristol

Sir, I can’t help thinking that the landmarks shown on your graph of road death statistics (report, Oct 16) are misleading. Those bent on ever-more legislation will celebrate any correlation in falling death rates with their pet regulation.

The truth about falling death rates is very clear if one uses the right reference points. The breath test had an immediate and profound effect, as can be seen from your graph. After that, the chosen landmarks do not really coincide with the results.

Death rates have fallen steadily since the late 1970s, but the primary reasons are that we drive better cars on better roads and, when things do go wrong, medicine is better at putting us back together. Crumple zones, side impact bars, antilock brakes and airbags are the prime movers.

To continue this improvement, I suggest that it is not unscientific regulation — speed cameras, 20mph limits or a spy in your car — that will achieve results, but legislation that concentrates on roadworthiness of vehicles and active, rather than automated, policing to remove dangerous vehicles, drunks and drug users from our roads.

Jonathan Owen
Derby

Sir, This nation has failed to take the matter of road safety seriously since falling in love with the motor car. In the years since 1926, where your chart starts, there have been more than 450,000 road deaths and more than 5 million serious injuries on our roads.

The number of deaths is similar to civilian casualties incurred by Britain in the Second World War. The number of serious injuries imposes an intolerable burden on public services.

Andrew Dow
Newton-on-Ouse, N Yorks

Explore Letters

• Feedback