IT was interesting to note that York's MP wore a helmet while enjoying his day as a cycling postman (February 27).

When the Post Office introduced its requirement for cycling staff to wear helmets, the Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC) asked Hugh to investigate the legality and safety implications of this policy.

Cycle helmets do give limited protection to one vulnerable part of the body, but they are not a universal panacea for safety. In some cases, helmets have exacerbated the effects of a collision, by converting near misses into neck-wrenching blows.

Some collisions involve a double impact, firstly with an obstruction then with a road surface. If the helmet is damaged by the first impact, then its limited usefulness ends there and then.

Most serious head injury occurs when an impact causes the brain to rotate inside the skull. This will happen regardless of whether or not a helmet is worn.

Experience shows that many other road users are prepared to take greater risks when overtaking helmeted cyclists, who are wrongly perceived as being "safe". That was sadly untrue of the four pedallers who were killed last year in North Wales. Helmets did not save their lives. Suits of armour might have done.

The CTC does advocate the use of body protection for mountain biking and racing for sport. However the average cycle commuter and shopper should be able to ride, without fear of being knocked off.

If society tackled the real causes of road collision, injury and death, instead of placing the onus for safety on the potential victim, we would all be a lot better off.

Paul Hepworth,

Press officer,

Cyclists' Touring Club North Yorkshire,

Windmill Rise,

Holgate, York.

Updated: 09:54 Thursday, March 02, 2006