Call for cycle helmet law after Jersey acceptance
Thursday 11th March 2010, 2:29PM GMT.
GUERNSEY should follow Jersey and make cycling without a helmet illegal, according to Headway.
The States of Jersey yesterday voted convincingly in favour of making it an offence for anyone under 18 to ride on the roads without a helmet.
Guernsey charity Headway’s fund-raising and publicity manager Philippa Stahelin commended the move and said the group would be putting pressure on Guernsey’s States to follow suit.
‘As someone who works with people who are dealing with the effects of brain injuries, I definitely support this move,’ she said.
Jersey’s government approved the law concerning under-18s by 33 votes to 16, but rejected extending it to adults by a single vote – 25 to 24.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Why under 18′s? It should be everybody, and not discriminating on young people.
Report abuse
GG, that`s probably because children and teenagers have more accidents. I know that from my childhood!
Report abuse
young people may have more accidents but falling of your bike on to your head is a dangerous at any age, Im all for the law but it needs to be a blanket law for everyone if a little kid sees his dad with out a helmet the first chance he gets he will go with out one
Report abuse
Ok so if you’re under 18 and you don’t wear a helmet can you get arrested and thrown into jail or/and fined! hahhahaha…..ha!
Report abuse
I think it will discourage people from using a push bike,the States should not do anything to put people off cycling.What next helmets for pedestrians?
Report abuse
I Le Page:
As a result of the previous report on the same issue I wondered if the same might be true. But I could not find any studies that confirmed the concern. In fact, what I read led me to the conclusion that a law such as this would be a step in the right direction to aid road safety. If you have any further information, or access to any relevant studies I would welcome the links.
Regards.
Report abuse
Helmets for States Deputies. Though many of them seem to be brain-damaged already.
Report abuse
Correct. Many more pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants die from head injuries than cyclists (see for example “The pattern of injury in fatal cycle accidents and the possible benefits of cycle helmets”, Kennedy, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1996 vol30 p130-133.) Wearing a cycle helmet is undoubtedly beneficial in a limited range of cases. That’s why I wear one. But, if it’s public safety that’s wanted, and cyclists are to be forced to wear helmets to achieve it, then other road users must be made to wear them also.
Report abuse
I do understand the implications for wearing a cyle helmet but what about my decision to NOT wear one. And I disagree about children seeing their parents not wearing one and then following suit – what a load of bunkum
Report abuse
If cyclists are going to be made to wear helmets then Quad bikers should as well, the states member who allowed said riders to go without helmets nedds his or her head examined.
Report abuse
And how exactly would it be policed? They are still allowing cyclists to continue without lights at night, riding on pavements etc, (I had to jump off the pavement the other day to get out of the way of a group of teenagers, going the wrong way up a one way road, on the pavement)
If they can’t be bothered enforce the requirement for lights how are they going to enforce helmets?
I am a cyclist myself, have lights on my bike and don’t cycle on pavements. But I don’t wear a helmet either as I believe that they don’t offer any real protection in return for the discomfort.
Report abuse
“(I had to jump off the pavement the other day to get out of the way of a group of teenagers, going the wrong way up a one way road, on the pavement)”
Hell n Back, that’s because the stupid system at Baubigny teaches the little darlings that riding on the pavement against the flow of traffic in a one way street is OK.
Report abuse
Anyone who is supporting such a ridiculous change to the law really needs to think again. There are just so many reasons why it would be bad. For starters:
1. there is very mixed evidence as to whether forcing people to wear helmets will reduce the injury rate. Wonder why? It’s because a) cycling helmets offer very little protection, unlike motorcycle helmets, and b) the more protective gear you wear, the more dangerously you are likely to behave – look at American Football players for evidence of that.
2. there is good evidence that mandatory helmet laws reduce the numbers of people cycling. And cycling is a powerful health-producing activity. So any benefit in reduced injury rates would be negated by the increase in obesity rates and obesity-related morbidity and mortality.
3. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of other activities that are dangerous, like crossing the road, or being a pedestrian generally. So why not force all pedestrians to wear helmets? Car drivers and passengers are also prone to head injuries, so why not force them all to wear helmets like rally car drivers? Why not just go the whole hog and ban pedestrians altogether unless they wear luminous jackets, carry a flag, and have completed a pedestrian safety course? Hey, if you really want to make Guernsey safer (check the NHS statistics on this), ban DIY – it’s one of the biggest causes of A&E attendance. A cycling helmet law in isolation shows a total lack of overall strategy on health and safety.
4. If we really want to make cycling safer, we should reduce the speed limit for cars, and get more people cycling. There’s plenty of evidence that high cycling rates are associated with lower injury rates (because other road users become more aware). And if we decreased the speed limit to 15 mph we’d definitely reduce the injury rate to all road users. But none of that is going to happen. Why? Because it’d be inconvenient and no politician wants to annoy the car driving public. Cyclists make a much easier target.
It’s pretty easy to make a law that doesn’t affect you personally – I may be totally wrong here, but somehow I doubt that any of our deputies cycle regularly into work.
5. Policing such a law would be problematic. Imagine police officers standing at the roadside and instead of concentrating on catching speeding moped drivers or cars with no functioning brakelights, they would be stopping cyclists without helmets and making them walk.
Phew. Got that rant off my chest. Sorry about the length, but this issue really annoys me.
So if anyone in favour of such a law fancies dismantling those arguments, feel free to have a go.
Report abuse
Further to my last post, if anyone wants to check out a fairly concise summary of arguments for and against helmets, check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
Report abuse
James – your post may have been long, but it is actually concise and to the point.
Report abuse
I am a cyclist,managing perhaps 2000 miles per year on average, and I don’t agree with mandatory helmets.
I am a bit worried though, because this is a nice easy one for the States to pass. Some of the issues in the last few years have been too hard for the poor dears to agree on, but it would be a shame if they seized on this as a chance to be seen to actually do something.
This is one time I hope they play down to their usual standards…
E. The other one.
Report abuse
Please please do not go down the same barmy route that Jersey has chosen. The arguments put by James are just some of the reasons why this is a seriously bad move. Truth man, and others. Just drop me a line and any questions you have and I will gladly supply the arguments and the references to back them up.
Very briefly: helmet law = fewer cyclists. Fewer cyclists = more danger per cyclist. The opposite is also true, that is: the more cyclists there are, the safer they are. Same is true for pedestrians, BTW.
What you (and we) should be aiming for is: more cyclists (for a whole host of reasons – does anyone dispute this?) , and better road safety, for all road users.
Helmet compulsion is a dangerous distraction from the real task.
And do not underestimate the benefits which cycling brings, both to the people cycling and to the community as a whole.
Report abuse
Daniel Wimberley,
As far as I am aware there is no evidence at all that cycle laws = fewer cyclists. If you are aware of a study, then please provide a link a reference to it.
Thanks.
Report abuse
It’s sad to see that Jersey is introducing a bicycle helmet law for children, particularly since the decision to legislate was based on inaccurate information from mandatory jurisdiction such as Western Australia.
Look at the results (not opinions) of the legislation in Western Australia at http://www.cycle-helmets.com. If the experience in Western Australia and other mandatory jurisdictions is repeated, Jersey can expect an approximate 30% increase in the rate of accidents per child cyclist on the road.
The 1990/92 helmet laws saw child cycling to school in Australia fall from 80% to 5%, so the long-term health impact is also likely to be bad. At least Jersey hasn’t legislated to discourage adults from healthy cycling exercise, so there won’t be a commensurate increase in vehicle traffic from discouraged cyclists driving cars instead to the shops, friends, etc – increasing traffic density and heightening the risk to all road users including cyclists.
If there are any current surveys re child cyclist hospital admissions and road cycling numbers in Jersey before the law, these should be compared with the results over the next few years, and other jurisdictions should monitor these results before harming their own citizens. There is plenty of available evidence from mandatory jurisdictions such as Western Australia that the law has been a public health disaster, but it’s apparent that most government authorities aren’t interested in overseas results.
Report abuse