Part of Oral Answers to Questions — Transport – in the House of Commons am 10:30 am ar 14 Mai 2009.
Peter Bottomley
Ceidwadwyr, Worthing West
10:30,
14 Mai 2009
The Secretary of State will understand that an increase in cycling can lead to a lower risk for each cyclist but a greater number of casualties among cyclists—that is one of the consequences of modal shift.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that his study, when it is published, shows both that crashes are a consequence of conflict, and that secondary protection makes a difference?
Will the Secretary of State ensure that a comparison is made between the Netherlands, where cyclists tend not to wear energy-absorbing helmets, and this country, where cyclists do tend to wear them, even though the CTC has not got around to recommending it?
Annotations
Martin Dann
Posted on 15 Mai 2009 11:54 pm (Report this annotation)
A decrease in cycling would lead to greater danger for each cyclist, and more obesity and early deaths. Consequently it would be a bad thing for the government do discourage cycling.
However one of the biggest ways of discouraging cycling is due to the dangerisation of cycling by helmet promotion, and the threat of mandatory helmet laws. When Australia introduced mandatory helmet laws a few year back, the number of cyclists fell by about 40%, they now have a huge obesity problem.
If the CTC ever does recommend wearing of helmets, then I will leave the CTC as this would signal the death of cycing in the UK
Phil Lee
Posted on 16 Mai 2009 1:06 am (Report this annotation)
That would be wonderful, as it would inevitably show that promoting cycle helmets is actually detrimental to cyclist safety, as it discourages cycling.