Misplaced priorities about cyclists reflect intrusion of nanny state

Matt Cooper argued in his Friday column (Jul 6) that only those with a pronounced distrust of the nanny state could object to legislation which would require children under 13 to wear helmets when cycling. We are enthusiastic adherents of the nanny state, but fear that Cooper’s priorities are misplaced.

Helmets do not prevent accidents; at best, they mitigate their effects to a limited extent. Even this limited benefit depends on helmets being correctly fitted and in good condition — one US study ascertained that 96% of children and adolescents wore helmets in inadequate condition and/or with inadequate fit. And helmets can also cause accidents, especially when worn in inappropriate situations such as at playgrounds, where the straps can catch on equipment.

Helmet laws and campaigns “dangerise” cycling by falsely presenting it as a high-risk activity. Trying to persuade or force people to cycle wearing helmets can deter people from cycling at all. When this happens, those who stop cycling lose the health benefits conveyed by cycling, congestion and pollution increase, and cyclists who remain on the road lose the “safety in numbers” effect (the more people cycle, the safer cycling becomes, since drivers get into the habit of looking out for cyclists.)