WHAT planet does Mike Usherwood live on (Letters, October 19)?
When I last looked the wearing of cycling helmets was through personal choice not law.
Between 1987 and 1991 head injuries were responsible for 39 per cent of pedestrian deaths; 25 per cent of driver deaths; 15 per cent of car passenger deaths and eight per cent of cyclist deaths.
Paul Marsh, a clinical psychologist with Barnet Healthcare Trust who worked in the brain injury rehabilitation unit, told London Cyclist magazine that:
1) Helmets offer limited protection, especially in collision accidents when the speed of impact is likely to be in excess of 12mph.
Even if cycle helmets offered greater protection they will always be wildly inadequate in collisions with motor traffic. Separating cars from bikes and reducing traffic speed and volume would be more effective solutions.
2) Cyclists are not usually responsible for the cause of serious collisions, and hardly ever for the speed at which they take place. It is unreasonable to make them legally responsible for protecting themselves from a situation that they have little or no power to prevent.
3) Why single out cyclists? Serious brain injury could be reduced considerably by the compulsory wearing of helmets during a number of daily activities, including having a few drinks on a Saturday night.
So Mike, while helmets do offer some protection for cyclists, they also do for many other activities - driving a car, walking, drinking and more. I'm sure you are dusting off yours now.
Clive Appleyard,
Westminster Road,
York.
Updated: 09:16 Thursday, October 21, 2004
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article