Cycle helmets to become law?
Monday 4th January 2010, 3:00PM GMT.
Deputy Green wants cycle helmets to be compulsory
CYCLISTS could soon be forced to wear helmets by law.
Deputy Andrew Green is taking a proposition to the States to require cyclists to wear helmets. His proposition, which has yet to be formally lodged, would offer States Members the option to either require all cyclists to wear helmets, or just to apply the rule to under-18s.
The Deputy’s son Chris suffered a brain injury when he came off his bike aged nine, and Deputy Green has spent the 20 years since the accident campaigning for more awareness of the effects of brain injuries.
He is now the chairman of UK charity Headway, which has campaigned nationally for a cycle helmet law. ‘The evidence is very clear that helmets do save brain injuries and so save lives and the UK Department of Transport have just come out with a report saying that,’ said Deputy Green, whose proposition will cover cyclists on roads, cycle tracks and off-road.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals & Departures
Harbours Arrivals & Departures
Bus Information & Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
BIRD WATCH 2012
Click here to record your results
The 11th Great Garden Bird Watch took place over the weekend, Saturday 4 and Sunday 5 February. JEP readers were asked to get on board to help monitor bird life in the Island.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
I can see the argument on the road…just despite the usual infringement of our civil liberties, not that we have any left these days but offroad is a step too far. Soon we will have snoopers in our garderns checking up to see if we are indulging in as bit of illegal cycle riding. Better still why not ban cycling altogether and insist we all walk (after an appropriate 20 page risk assesment of course) wrapped up in suitable white fluffy safety suit!!
Report abuse
‘The evidence is very clear that helmets do save brain injuries and so save lives and the UK Department of Transport have just come out with a report saying that’.
Staying in bed saves lives. Not driving Saves Lives, Doing nothing can save lives. Wearing body armour saves lives? Maybe we should all wear armour just in case?
Damn what next?
Why another law. Whatever happened to common sence, thinking and looking after ourselves. Who will police this and whats the big brother fine for not wearing a helmet?
Report abuse
Has deputy green had nothing better on the lead up to holidays other than to think of 101 ways to nanny us all. Fist its school road at first tower now its helmets.
This law would be a waste of time, the police by their own admission are too busy to be dealing with their current work load let alone keeping tabs on someone getting home from work!
Of course the hobby bobbies might like to do it, god knows they need another knit picky thing to start pulling people over with.
Then of course comes the punishment, which shall be? Parish hall enquiry? imprisonment? Of course you’ve actually got to catch the person first. After all they could just cycle off. Of course big brother could then want the crazy idea of bike number plates!
I for one where a helmet when riding, but then cliff paths and downhill stuff really requires it. However its MY CHOICE to do so!
Next will hear women will need to go on proficiency tests to make sure they can walk in heels to stop ankle injuries!
Report abuse
Sorry Mr Green, but don’t interfere in my freedom of choice, instead if you want to do something constructive, make road tax and insurance compulsory so that those people that flaunt the law by riding the wrong way up roads, ride in the precinct, ignore traffic lights etc etc can be held accountable!!!
Report abuse
This will just discourage cycling further in turn encouraging obesity and poor health. I believe helmets should be encouraged but not forced on to people’s heads. More serious policing of roads would help reduce chances of injuries, and more sensibly cycling from some cyclists.
Report abuse
I’ve been cycling Jersey’s roads for 30+ years. The last time I came off my bike was as a child sometime in the 1970s. Despite having a number of cycle crashes as a youth I never once injured my head. It was always my hands or knees that took the brunt. The same can be said for every adult I know who cycles.
So I would agree children should have to wear helmets. But adults? No. Not whilst the incidence of cycling related head injury amongst adults at the General Hospital is so minimal as to be negligible.
Let’s please see some common sense and not a paranoid overreaction with any implementation of this law. Let us bring it in only if it is proven to be needed, not purely for the sake of bringing it in “just in case” somebody one day has a rare accident where they land on their head, because the latter really is “nanny state” mentality.
If the States want to be practical and proactive about giving cyclists additional protection from harm they should concentrate on fixing the dents and holes in the island’s roads, and begin to better educate motorists about the presence of cyclists on island roads.
Report abuse
Helmet wearing should be the common sense responsibly of the individual, or, in the case of children, the responsibility of the parent to ensure that they provide adequate safety gear in order that they are sufficiently protected.
Should we expect our excellent police force, already heavily burdened with current laws, to be on the prowl for non helmeted cyclists ?
Report abuse
Please, please, please stop all this nannying. We know the risks that we take going about our normal everyday lives.
Report abuse
Excellent news! Fingers crossed this law gets passed, and passed for all ages. Helmets save lives – I’d hate to think where I’d be now if I hadn’t been made to wear a helmet by my parents when I was younger. Good on Deputy Green for taking this proporition to the States.
Report abuse
Wearing a helmet on a motorbike is already compulsory, so it’s hard to argue against making helmets compulsory on bikes too, at the very least for riding on the road.
Yes, bikes go slower than motorbikes, but cycle helmets also offer a correspondingly lower level of protection.
While we’re drafting a bike-related law, let’s add (or reinforce) laws relating to night lighting. If the number of kids I see weaving carelessly down dark streets at night dressed in black with no lights is anything to go by, it’s only a matter of time before someone gets flattened, and you can bet the blame will be laid at the foot of the motorist as usual.
Anyway, roll on the “nanny state” and “freedom of choice” comments…
Report abuse
Why did the British Medical Association ( BMA) previously recommend the UK government NOT force Cycle Helmet wearing ?, because the evidence is far from clear cut as Headway and this deputy would like you to believe. In Australia legislation forcing cyclists to wear helmets resulted in a decline in the number of cyclists by circa 40% and it was this reduction that lowered the number of injuries. The BMA considered that the loss to he public of a health activity was not sufficiently offset by a small safety benefit. Headway know this and argue that cycle numbers recovered somewhat in Australia, but omit to acknowledge that the minimum age to drive a cars was increased by a year.
The BMA at a recent annual conference relented after intense lobbying by pressures groups similar to Headway, and now back the introduction of cycle helmets. This change of heart was only narrowly passed, so please do not think that the evidence is as clear cut as some wish you to believe.
Finally if you wish to wear a helmet, please do so, but respect my choice as an informed adult not to.
Report abuse
Here we go again. Nanny state. Leave us alone and stop wasting our money – the unnecessary flu vaccine, roadworks, far too many public sector employees immediately spring to mind.
Report abuse
More unnecessary legislation
Report abuse
i cycle to work everyday, and wouldn’t dream of not wearing my helmet. the way some people drive over here and treat cyclists with such contempt makes it essential for me to wear one.
Report abuse
How about making it compulsory to wear a suit of armour on a bike?
Report abuse
If it becomes law then I will stop cycling, the ‘nanny state’ is getting right up my nose.Accidents will always happen and I am sure a £5 helmet wont save me from a 4×4.
Report abuse
bri8lliant idea, those who get injured not wearing a helmet should pay for their treatment and or burial and whilst we are at it we should enforse traffic law on cyclists in the same way we do car drivers they are a total pain
Report abuse
“…or just to apply the rule to under-18s”
How ridiculous
So if the police see someone without a helmet who looks around 17,18,19ish then they will have to stop him to ask for ID to prove he’s old enough to be riding helmetless..?!
Back to the drawing board, Deputy!
Report abuse
This law will also have to require the correct fitting of the helmet, as a badly fitted helmet will be more dangerous than none.
And what penalty will this law impose upon the 10year old not wearing his helmet?
Also, if he’s going to make protecting yourself in an accident a requirement, shouldn’t he take the oppourtunity to make protecting yourself from an accident? High visability clothing etc.?
Report abuse
Why not leave this down to common sense?
How on earth are you going to enforce such a law, ban cycling, skate boarding, roller blading, surfing trying to negotiate the streets of St Helier in fact I must wear my helmet when I go to the pub – just encase someone decides to hit me over the head with a bottle.
We all know the worst case possible consequences are, yet we have Deputy Andrew Green from the nanny state telling us what is best for us.
Get a grip on life Deputy Andrew Green, can I not decide what is best for me!!!!
Report abuse
I am sure the Police have enough to do – they don’t seem to be able to stop people using their phones whilst driving for a start.
Report abuse
I guess it’s easier than making sure car drivers are awake at the wheel. I’ve never worn a helmet and never will, I wouldn’t worry about prosecution as the police can’t even stop those cyclists who routinely run red lights and ride on the footpath.
What about prosecuting car drivers who run amber lights, amber means stop remember unless it’s not safe to do so. Or drive during the winter months early in the morning when it’s dark without their lights on – waddya they think, they are saving elelectricity?
Report abuse
If I remember correctly Jersey made motorcyclist wear safety helmets before the UK government. It was made law in Jersey after a States member’s son was killed in a motorcycling accident, no safety helmet was being worn. It was about 1967-68 I think. No one, in their right mind would ride a motorcycle these days without one. there could alo be savings to the HEALTH DEPT if helmets were worn by cyclists in accidents not to mention the heartache of the families. Many years ago, I attended an accident where an unprotected child cyclist was in collision with a car, if he had being wearing a helmet then part of his scalp would not have been imbedded in the car’s grill. New Zealand made it compulsory in 1994, the statistical benefits are appears to be inconclusive but that is not a reason for Jersey not to have a sensibile debate. Most people wear the cars seatbelt these days too!
Report abuse
Car drivers should wear helmets as well. That would reduce the risk of head injuries inside cars.
Report abuse
They should make cyclists wear seatbelts. Unless they are taxi riders, in which case they don’t have to.
Report abuse
Should it become law to have to wear a cycle helmet then anyone wondering what the penalty for not doing so can contact me as I will no doubt be “done” for it on numerous occasions.
If however the penalty turns out to be a fine, and I get caught too often, I shall just give up cycling and go back to driving everywhere.
Report abuse
It’s been law in Australia for many years, and they would agree it saves lives! Yes we cannot compare our island to that of Australia, but when a car knocks a cyclist down the results are often the same!
Well done Mr Green! Everyone else, think….with your head!
Report abuse
I was a happy non-helmet wearer, til someone brought me one, and, against my preference, I decided to wear it a few times. It felt weird and uncomfortable at first, but now I don’t even notice I’ve got it on, and to be honest quite like sitting in a car without a seatbelt, or dare I say it, leaving home without your mobile in your pocket, it actually feels strange now heading out without one. Almost everyone I see in the morning that I pass, or they pass me, is wearing one, I therefore don’t see why everyone above is making such a fuss.
Report abuse
Firstly, I do cycle and wear a helmet.
However, I have noticed that many cyclists do not wear their helmet properly, which should be forward over your forehead, rather than sitting on the back of your head.(Unlike a motorcycle helmet which is virtually impossible to wear incorrectly if it is the correct size)
While I kinda see the logic behind these proposals, the existing legislation is rarely enforced such as lights at night, adhearance to traffic lights / road signs etc.
I guess many cyclists will give up and drive instead
Report abuse
Personally I don’t see te problem. A dear friend of mine came off his bicycle in Ireland going down a steep hill (Jersey has plenty of those!). He was not wearing a helmut and as a result spent two weeks unconcious in Intensive care for a serious brain injury. He was let out of hospital 2 months later and had to learn to reuse his right arm and his speech was impaired due to the broken jaw he sustained. Even now 6 months on he is not the same person we knew and loved. The doctor thinks the only reason he escaped serious back injury was because he had a laptop in his rucksack. Now I understand that this move may be unpopular but if it saves even one other person from suffering the same injuries as my friend did then it is the right thing to do. Coming down a hill its quite easy to reach the same speeds that you would on a motorbike or car. You would not think about getting on a motorbike without a helmut and a motorbike has thicker tyres and much better brakes. There is no doubt that helmuts save lives so 3 cheers to the states for making this positive step.
Report abuse
Sorry one more thing. Reading down the emails I fail to understand why if this law was passed people would stop cycling? When I was 12 I used to take my helmut off the moment I was out of my mums line of sight. Reason…because I was vain. I hated to be laughed at by the kids at school who said it was not “cool”. The thing is I am not 12 any more and so I struggle to see why anyone would stop cycling if the law was passed. Are people that worried about keeping their hair straight that they would put there own lives at risk?
Report abuse
If I had a child who wanted to cycle I would insist they were a helmet otherwise no bike.This hopefully would lead to them always wearing one if they continued to cycle in to adult life.I rarely see a cyclist without a helmet where I live as people tend to take cycling quite seriously and you don’t see people on bikes behaving as erratically as you do on Jersey roads although one gentleman did recently cycle along a village road without any lights on his bike and was killed outright by a driver who simply didn’t see him.Whilst I fully agree that every cyclist should wear a helmet I cannot see how this law would be enforced.
Report abuse
If you do not wear a helmet then its your fault when you have an accident, but its your family who picks up the pieces.
I take it you all wear your seat belts whilst in the car?
Report abuse
If you follow Dep Greens arguement logicly- we should ban motorcyclists – plenty of brain and all other types of injuries with motorbike accidents
Report abuse
Good to see lots of people protesting against the ‘nanny state’, too many laws and erosion of civil liberties. All the constructive ideas about enforcing traffic laws, such as not talking on mobile phones etc, are to be commended – they would be a much better use of police time than catching helmet-less cyclists and would also have better effect on cyclists heads. Does anyone have statistics not only on how many head injuries to cyclists, but how many are caused by car drivers, not the cyclist.
Report abuse
Get over it Jersey! You all moaned about having to “belt up”. Nothing to do with Nannys or civil liberties. It’s called commonsence.
Report abuse
GREAT IDEA!!!
Additionally they should have automatic spikes on the inside that are deployed as soon as the cyclist does something illegal, which they no doubt will do!
Report abuse
How many serious injuries have occured as a direct result of cyclists not wearing head protection? Mmmmmmm!
It is not something one hears about very often is it?
Like so many have previously stated – there are simply hundrerds of more pressing issues for our politicians to contend with.
It is far, far easier to bring a successful proposition to the States when the outcome affects only a minority.
A proven killer, directly or indirectly, of millions of people, is the eating of fatty foods. If a politician is serious about saving lives & medical costs then try taking a proposition to the States, banning the consumption of red meats.
Too difficult to score the political points, I suggest!
Report abuse
These “I will stop cycling” comments hardly surprise me!
Jersey was about the last place in the British Isles to accept the notion that seat belts are a good idea.
Bolshie Crapauds, as Helier would say. The last bastion of civil liberties – you wish.
Report abuse
I don’t understand why many of you think that to enforce the wearing of cycle helmets would mean to revoke your civil liberties. This is ridiculous. It is for your own safety!
If you are stupid enough to go out on the roads without a cycle helmet then I agree that the individual should have to pay for their own medical treatment and suffer a penalty for breaching the law (if enforced).
You may be a proficient cyclist but what about those drivers who show no respect for cyclists and may perhaps knock you off your bike? Your cycling skills will be of no use to you then but what will be is your cycle helmet!
Report abuse
Helmet laws have stopped a lot of people cycling and have done nothing for head injury rates, see Robinson DL. No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets. BMJ. 2006 March 25; 332(7543): 722–725. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722-a. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16565131 (Robinson’s work uses the best scientific methods, all available control groups and so on.)
In real accidents bike helmets don’t seem to crush as designed, they break instead. The senior engineer of Bell Sports, the market leader in cycle helmets, has written: “Another source of field experience is our experience with damaged helmets returned to customer service… I collected damaged infant/toddler helmets for several months in 1995. Not only did I not see bottomed out helmets, I didn’t see any helmet showing signs of crushing on the inside.” In 1987, the Australian Federal Office of Road Safety found that in real accidents “very little crushing of the liner foam was usually evident… What in fact happens in a real crash impact is that the human head deforms elastically on impact. The standard impact attenuation test making use of a solid headform does not consider the effect of human head deformation with the result that all acceleration attenuation occurs in compression of the liner. Since the solid headform is more capable of crushing helmet padding, manufacturers have had to provide relatively stiff foam in the helmet so that it would pass the impact attenuation test…”
It appears that helmets break easily, but don’t absorb the impact, see the engineers quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Criticism_of_current_standards.3B_new_designs. A broken helmet has simply failed, and the widespread anecdotes on the theme of “a helmet saved my life” seem to owe more to wishful thinking than to science. As for the occasional anecdotes about “a car ran over my head” (http://www.kptv.com/news/21541052/detail.html), see the pro-helmet site http://www.helmets.org/smush.htm; if a car goes over your head, I’m sorry to say you won’t be sitting up and praising your helmet. The only known connection between helmets and death is that helmets have strangled a few young children who were wearing helmets while playing off their bicycles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet for an incomplete list.
Helmet propaganda relies on overemphasizing the very small dangers of cycling and seldom seems to emphasize its large benefits. At my moderately advanced age it’s far too dangerous not to cycle – regular cycling, Danish style, not too far, not too fast, nearly halves the death rate, see http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/11/1621 All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports, and Cycling to Work. Andersen et al, Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1621-1628. Taking up moderate exercise is about as beneficial as giving up smoking. Bicycling is good for health, but bike helmets don’t seem to be.
Report abuse
i think this is a brilliant idea. helmets do help in reducing the risk of head injury when accident occurs. to many people cycle around the island with little safety equipment, and when they are hit or injure themselve, it is anyone but the cyclists fault. we have to wear seat belts and no one complains, builders have to wear hard hats, motor cyclist have to wear helmets, so why do cyclist not have to when they are in just as much danger. This article is good news, people on here who complain do so because they have nothing better to do. GET BACK TO WORK
Report abuse
I get the nanny state comments, but why on earth would wearing a helmet make you stop cycling? Are you only cycling so people can see your latest haircut or something?
Report abuse
Unfortunately I was hit on the head by a missile launched by a seagull whilst walking in King Street. Other passersby were also involved in this unfortunate accident. Had we all been wearing helmets the heath risk to us would have been far less. Perhaps the solution is that we should all wear helmets all the time, just in case anything ever happens?
Report abuse
I will stop cycling if the law demands I wear a helmet.
For me the essence of cycling is one of the freedom to not have to worry about carrying peripherals or being prepared beforehand. I’m a casual cyclist and I cycle because I can hop on a bike at a whim, anytime, anyplace, without thought. That will change if cycle helmets become Law.
Also, on Jersey more pedestrians are injured by cars each year than are cyclists. But I see no law demanding pedestrians wear adequate protection when walking by the roadside, so why focus an illogical and inappropriate extreme of importance on forcing people to wear cycle helmets? If you’re going to worry about health protection, focus on the hazards in their order of risk.
I see too that a few people here are equating motorcyle helmets with cycle helmets. Again, illogical. When you’re travelling at speed on a motorcycle and hit another vehicle you have not only the moving force of that vehicle to contend with, you have the motorised momentum of your motorcyle acting as a powered catapult. You do not have that with a pedal bike, the physics of impact is very different.
Report abuse
Was there this much fuss when the seat belt laws came in?
Did people stop driving because the “nanny state” dared to try and make them safe?
GROW UP!
Report abuse
Jon, interesting point, so if I follow your drift only those contributors who agree with you should comment everyone else is a lazy waster with nothing better to do. Just as well you are not running the Island, thank goodness, free speach would be dead!
Report abuse
Should we expect our excellent police force, already heavily burdened with current laws,
Can someone please tell me where I can find an execllent Police force in Jersey – judging in recent results it’s not at Rouge Bouillon……
Report abuse
“i think this is a brilliant idea. helmets do help in reducing the risk of head injury when accident occurs. ”
Yes, but they are statistically proven to increase the risks of being paralysed from the neck down. Which is why many cycling groups in the UK are opposed to wearing helmets, because they take the view that they would sooner be brain damaged than paralysed.
I would suggest a better course of action would be to imprison for at least 3 years anybody who negligently knocks down a cyclist. Cyclists have accidents because of either their own fault or he fault of an inconsiderate motorist. We should use existing legislation to make motorists more considerate.
By the way, I cycle a lot and I always wear a helmet.
Report abuse
I can’t believe the stupidity of so many of the comments above. At the very least helmet wearing for children should be made into a law. Many years ago I would have lost my son had it not been for his helmet. Thankfully his headmaster of the time would not allow children to ride their bikes to school without wearing a helmet if they did so the bikes would be held for two weeks. Not one of the sensible parents of the children complained everyone thought it was great because all of the children wore the helmet so no one felt different. To all those who have made ridiculous comments regarding nanny state etc; yes you have an opinion how ever try and see common sense and think if it were your child or a child you knew get off your soap boxes. Helmets save lives full stop.
No41 Richard. Try to quote your own theory nothing more boaring that reading someone elses internet trail of theory which are full of inaccuracies and pure waffle
Report abuse
Kate says : “Try to quote your own theory nothing more boaring that reading someone elses internet trail of theory which are full of inaccuracies and pure waffle”
Is that not the same as encouraging people to post their narrow prejudices and ignore any external evidence to the contrary? Oh brave new world…
Report abuse
This argument isn’t really about cycle helmets at all.
It’s about personal freedom. And legislation. The philosophy in other countries is so far from ours, that some of them would be laughing their socks off at this. We make rules and laws for eveything.
Is it ok to take risks or not?
I don’t believe that anybody has the right to compel me to do something I don’t want to do unless my actions have a strong chance of imposing on somebody else.
I have to be responsible for myself and regulate myself.
The only thing I really have to do in this life is die, the rest should be a choice, althought the consequences of not doing certain things are very grave.
Will I wear a cycle helmet – well, I’ve been cycling regularly for nearly 40 years and not had an accident and I’m prepared to risk it for the wonderful feeling of freedom and to have the wind in my hair – my choice, nobody elses.
Report abuse
Kate #50. Could not agree more.
Report abuse
This law is designed to help people, thats right folks help people. If there is plausible and consistant evidence to prove bike helmets are dangerous and bad for you then please show me it. As for using wikipedia to prove a point…
Practically, it will only be enforced when a policeman sees an offence, it will not cost millions to enforce. The law may cost to draft and pass ascent but other than that it is not a particularly expensive task, compared with the impact it will have on cyclists frame of mind. In reality they will probably crib of a simular law from another juristiction.
Some of you confuse this with a civil liberty issue. It could possibly be one if your religion requires you to wear your hair up high on your head, preventing you from wearing a helmet – Thus restricting your liberty. However, I doubt it would stand as an issue in the E.C.H.R, I suppose some religious group somewhere would try and argue it down, but seriously is the ‘freedom’ to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet really a justified human right? C’mon lets get real here, use your brains!
Report abuse
Although I feel sorry that Deputy Andrew Green’s son was injured and brain damaged 20 years ago I think that maybe it should be compulsory for children up to the age of 16 to wear a helmet but an individuals choice after this age. I would be interested in the statistics of bike accidents in Jersey whereby children and adults have been brain damaged through a bike accident which I would have thought would be maintained by the General Hospital and if I was to put forward a proposition like this then I would want to have all neccessary data. Remember this data should be related to the island only or are we using data from around the world like China / India etc where the bike is the main mode of and therefore would provide a very different set of statistics. I understand the saying “Even if it saves one person from brain damage it is worth it” but surley I though being an adult allowed you to make decisions re wearing a helmet, smoking, drinking, going to war etc
Report abuse
LOL it seems everyone that dares disagree with Kate (50) shall be labelled with “stupidity”, “ridiculous”, “try and see common sense”, “boaring” (whatever that is??)and “pure waffle”. Kate declares herself to be righteous “full stop”
Long live free speech and open debate eh Kate! (Just as long as we all agree with you, that is!)
Report abuse
My favourite comment above has got to be that by enacting this law, the States will be encouraging obesity
…classic
Report abuse
Kate, is Richard a wild boar or some other sort of boar as your post suggests?
Report abuse
What a silly idea. How about a new law to stop cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavement? Oh yes, forgot, there already is one. Not that you would know it.
My neighbour knew someone who had a bike and he was a very nice man.
Report abuse
Several years ago I was cycling along the cycle track with a few mates, only one of us wearing a helmet. A kid ran out of the bush separating the track from the footpath in front of the mate wearing the helmet. To save running into the kid he intuitively slammed his brakes on but flipped the bike forward so it pivoted over the front wheel and the first thing to hit the deck was the top of his head. It all happened so fast he didn’t even have time to put his hands out.
Had he not been wearing his helmet, the force he struck the track at he would have definitely sustained a fatal injury and the large crack in the helmet would have been in his head. As it was he got away with minor neck injury. If it had been any of us lot not wearing the helmet we’d have been killed instantly.
In my opinion deputy Green makes the argument non refutable when he says that you can choose not to wear a helmet but the state cannot choose not to look after you because you chose not to and damaged your brain.
Initially the law may deter cyclists, like it deterred Italians off their scooters, but then as people accept it and they become items of fashion like motorcycle helmets this won’t be a problem. What I don’t want is to pay for someone who needs round the clock care because he couldn’t be bothered to wear a helmet.
Report abuse
I have taken to wearing bubblewrap and several pairs of underpants whenever I go out.
It does look a bit silly but its for the best.
At least that’s what the nosy neighbour says, and he should know, he once caught his finger in a mousetrap whilst poking it.
Let’s have a Jay Walking law and compulsory fluro jackets for all and large numbers of Police Support people (unpaid busy-bodies would do the trick) to enforce it.
Or you could get the car drivers to look where they are going of course.
Report abuse
@St Lawrence #40
“…If you are stupid enough to go out on the roads without a cycle helmet then I agree that the individual should have to pay for their own medical treatment…”
If you would expect this of those who fail to protect themselves while doing something with a productive purpose, like cycling to work/school, is it right to assume you’d think similarly about those who suffer injuries doing less productive activities like climbing/swimming/surfing etc. etc.?
Seems to me that if so you’re advocating that everybody that does anything should pay their own way, which would help lower the burden on the tax-payer, although obviously a lot of people would have to go without care, or get personal liability insurance.
Report abuse
Cycling, with or without a helmet, is one of the safest ways to travel, even on Jersey’s narrow streets. Nevertheless I always wear a helmet as it keeps my head dry and warm and I have a responsibility to be a good role model for my child.
That said, i believe that introducing the compulsory wearing of helmets will have a negligible effect on accident staitstics as there are already so few in Jersey.
It is arguable that it will however increase the danger to cyclists because stubbornness and fear will keep more and more of them off the roads. There is safety in numbers, as anyone who has attended one of Jersey’s organised bike rides will tell you. Furthermore, the wearing of safety equipment such as reflective clothing or a helmet has been shown to encourage riskier behaviour on the part of motorists who appaer to assume that helmeted, neon-clad cyclists are invincible.
Cycling is a cheap, clean and green form of transport that is good for the cyclist, good for the environment and good for the motorist as it decreases the number of cars on our already congested roads. What cyclists need in Jersey is more consideration from others and better facilities, but these will only come when there are more of us and therefore more demand.
I fear that if legislation is brought in it will have the opposite effect as many die-hard cyclists, such as Jersey Bob, will swap their two wheels for four. All of the non-cycling motorists who complain endlessly about us cyclists will then find out how much we are doing them a favour by limiting the number of four-wheeled vehicles on the road.
Report abuse
Well, I’m disabled with multiple sclerosis and I only ever go along the cycle track and never on the road.
Because of my disability, I’m lucky if I get up to the speed of a slow jog, but the exercise does me good even though it’s incredibly hard to do.
I can’t even wear a beanie hat when cycling because my spatial awareness suffers if my head gets warm.
Will this law force me to wear a cycle helmet too? Even though I’m never on the road and I’m going really slowly and I’m already in poor health? And even though having something on my head impairs me?
I’ve no doubt that wearing a cycle helmet is a good idea and not wearing one isn’t so clever, but there’s lots of things that fit into the same arguments.
The people on this forum who are arguing about cycle helmets are missing the point – people should be encouraged to choose the right actions, the law shouldn’t force them. If we go down that road are we going to ban smoking and binge drinking and eating too much fatty food as well?
Please don’t take away our free choice.
Report abuse
What we should all realise is that people sometimes find it hard to make a lifestyle change based on their own judgement.
Knowing this to be true has often helped me understand that people will use an external factor to justify a decision that they always meant to make but just needed that final shove.
It could well be that they wonder why they ever bought that bike in the first place -perhaps a New Year Resolution to get fit that never got off the ground?
For instance, in my mid 60′s I am getting a bit old for canoeing. If it became mandatory to wear a helmet for that activity I could make a mock protest and bow out without admitting that I’m past it or I’ve lost interest.
Report abuse
#44 Phil.
Surely you have seen those baseball caps decorated with artificial “Merde des Mauves” and bearing the slogan “Damned Seagulls”.
You could buy them at Greve de Lecq, or Ouaisne in it’s heyday.
Report abuse
Was there this much fuss when the seat belt laws came in?
Did people start cycling because the “nanny state” dared to try and make them safe?
Bring back the man with the red flag and a 20 mph speed limit. That would save lives.
Report abuse
Making helmets compulsory in cars would save lives.
Racing drivers wear them so they must be of some benefit.
Cyclists should also be made to wear cricket shin pads. What is all the fuss about said the outsider. GROW UP!
Report abuse
Cycle helmets should be made compulsory for pedestrians. That would undoubtedly save lives.
Report abuse
I know that evidence is frowned upon but here is some: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html
It is worth reading the lot but I would highlight 1 section.
“Long-term analyses of fatalities in Canada [8], New Zealand [9] and USA [10] [11] show no helmet benefit; indeed, one study [11] suggests helmeted cyclists are more likely to be killed. Although fatality rates have generally declined, cyclists have fared no better than pedestrians. In Great Britain, too, there has been no discernible improvement in fatality trends relative to pedestrians as helmets have become more common [12] [13] .
In New South Wales, Australia in the three years following the introduction of its helmet law, 80% of cyclists killed and 80% of those seriously injured wore helmets at the time [3] [4]. These proportions are almost identical to wearing rates in street surveys (85% and 83% for adults in 1992 and 1993 respectively; 76% and 74% for children [3] [5]), suggesting that helmets had little effect on the likelihood of fatal or serious injury.
In Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction [6]. Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement [7]. Thus the increase in helmet wearing as a result of the law did not reduce fatalities relative to cycle use and may have led to an increase.
Comparing Australia-wide fatalities in 1988 (before any helmet law) with 1994 (when all states had enforced laws and about 80% helmet wearing), cyclist, pedestrian and all road user deaths fell by 35%, 36% and 38% respectively. Head injury deaths fell by 30%, 38% and 42%. Despite very high helmet use, the reductions for cyclists were less than for the other road users [17]. The differences are much greater still if the considerable fall in cycle use as a result of the helmet laws is taken into account.”
So, if there is evidence that helmets reduce brain injuries, let’s have it. So far, all we have had is people saying “if it wasn’t for my helmet I would be dead”, which is an anecdote, not evidence.
Or, let’s look at this another way. What if the deputy was planning to ban a race of people on the grounds they were likely to burgle. Would we allow him to get away with it without evidence?
Report abuse
Several days ago I was cycling along the cycle track with a few buddies, only five of us wearing a helmet. A hedgehog ran out of the bush separating the track from the footpath in front of the mate not wearing the helmet. To save running into the animal he intuitively slammed his feet on but flipped the bike sideways so it pivoted over the pedal and the first thing to hit the deck was the top of his arm. It all happened so fast he didn’t even have time to put his hands out.
Had he been wearing a helmet, the minimal force he struck the track at he would have definitely not sustained any injury and the large crack in the story would have been in his head. As it was he got away with minor ego injury. If it had been any of us lot who were wearing the helmet we’d have been much the same. No effect whatsoever
Report abuse
“This law is designed to help people”
I believe the Nazi’s said a similar thing regarding there final solution programs.
Where does “what is good for us” become “DO AS I SAY OR ELSE”
There are hundreds of situation that could do with some form of nanny state rule. But for the most part they are left alone. This is one such thing that should be. Parent, adult, common sense!
To put it simply, who cares if one person becomes a vegetable or dies from not wearing a helmet.
How many people get run over, die as result of someone else’s speeding. 9/11, famine, genocide and the list goes……… Heart breaking for people who knew the person/people, but just a bit of news or statistic for the rest. That’s the cold horrible bottom line.
We don’t read about people getting seriously hurt on their bikes everyday in the paper, so why is this now a pressing matter over I don’t know; the massive spate of public assaults and GHB going on in town at the weekend?
Maybe what is good for us is a totalitarian state with armed marshals on every corner. Just need to brush up on some GDR history to put that in to place!
Report abuse
#49 “I would suggest a better course of action would be to imprison for at least 3 years anybody who negligently knocks down a cyclist.”
No disagreement from me, as long as the same sentence applies to cyclists that negligently (or through totally conscious disregard for the rules of the road) cause a collision with a car. It’s irrelevant which party is injured the most the relevance is in who is safe to continue to use the road and poses less threat to others.
Also, is this ‘choice’ of brain damange over paralysis not a little bit sick in the head, never mind somewhat selfish.
I do not doubt that there are idiot drivers out there but slowly but surely they get their comeuppance. The people that don’t ever seem to get theirs are the cyclists that use the road and make themselves as invisible as possible. It’s not hard or expensive to make yourself visible and I would wager that those who do this are involved in far few accidents.
Report abuse
Ok wearing a helmet can save your life or save u form getting brain damage etc etc but making it law to wear a helmet just thinking about it makes me angry if people don’t want to wear a helmet well then so be it they know the risks if they want to put their life on the line it’s their choice. Personally I font wear a helmet and I’m fine admitidly I’ve fallen off a few times or so but IM FINE.
Conclusion:
If people don’t want to wear a helmet let them the police have enough to handle already. People know the risks and ride without a helmet knowing the risks and they ride quite happily if u ask me! So if they don’t want to wear a helmet they shouldn’t have to. FREEDOM
Report abuse
And by making the people of jersey that are under 18 wear a helmet will just make them not want to wear one as all people do if they are forced to do something early on in life they will probably rebel later in life!
Report abuse
Why not take it to its natural conclusion. Force all car users to wear a multi point harness and install roll cages in every vehicle. Ban cycling, rollerblades, skate boards, pogo sticks and stilts. Only allow children to play outside with a full body protection kit on for half an hour every sunday, but only if its not raining (may be slippery!). That should stop all any any kind of accident. Nanny State – please stop it!
Report abuse
A DoT study in the UK appeasr to put paid to the myth that it is reckless behaviour by cyclists that causes accidents:
“more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike”
“With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
Assuming this to be true, adressing driver behaviour would prove more effective than compulsory helmet laws in reducing injuries.
Report abuse
you can’t even cycle whilst drunk anymore! that is the whole reason to own a bike
Report abuse
Batman #71
Very funny but aside from that I’m not sure what your point is. Splitting your head wide open is far more likely to kill you than hitting your elbow, probably something to do with the fact that your elbow doesn’t house your brain… well in most cases anyway.
Perhaps you’d also find it funny if you personally knew one of the hundreds of people unfortunate enough to have suffered sever brain injuries in the UK every year that could have been avoided or reduced in sevarity they had simply strapped a helmet on? I apreciate the important word is “could” but surely that’s the whole point of most risk reducing measures? Mocking that notion won’t change it.
Report abuse
n my opinion deputy Green makes the argument refutable when he says that you can choose to wear a helmet but the state cannot choose to look after you because you chose not to.
Initially the law may deter pedestrians, like it deterred Italians off their gondolas, but then as people accept it and they become items of fashion like army helmets this won’t be a problem. What I don’t want is not to pay for someone who needs round the clock haircuts because he couldn’t be bothered to wear a helmet.
Report abuse
Wake Up at 78; “you can’t even cycle whilst drunk anymore! that is the whole reason to own a bike”.
Well said. Mind you, there are compensations. You can ride on pavements, through red lights and up one way streets. That almost makes up for not being able to ride while intoxicated
Report abuse
The assumption here is that cyclists are retarded and don’t know it’s a tad safer to have one….Let them choose..and if they get injured….Tough..point is Govt interference.Smoking kills zillions more citizens than those without helmets.so if the goal is protection of us,why not ban smoking…?could it be the huge tax revenue that is gleaned from fag sales….are you intimating Truthseeker ? that our Govt are more concerned with grabbing more dosh and removing civil liberties than actually helping us….You’re damn right I am !
Report abuse
How about making helmets compulsory in towm after 10 on a Saturday night in case some drunk smashes a bottle over your head. To give the bouncers a chance, our driving licence photos should show us wearing them. We could sell the helmet space for advertising to a company, say “The Make Everyone’s Lives a Complete Misery by Constantly Interfering Company Limited”.
Report abuse
#76′s comments actually make sense ! Virtually all fatal accidents on Jersey’s roads involving vehicle occupants would have been prevented if the cars had been installed with Roll Cages, Rally Seats and multi point harnesses.
If these measures were adopted, and travel by foot and cycle outlawed, the roads would be virtually 100% safe.
Report abuse
How about making bouncers wear cycle helmets? That would reduce the occupational hazards of their work. They could take them off when they cycle home
)
Report abuse
It is all very funny but aside from that I’m not sure what the point of it is. Splitting your sides laughing is far more likely to kill you than hitting your elbow, probably something to do with the fact that your funny bone doesn’t house your brain… well in most cases anyway.
Perhaps one would also find it funny if we personally knew one of the many people unfortunate enough to have escaped skeletal injuries in the UK every year that could have been exacerbated in severity if they had been unfortunate enough to have strapped a helmet on? I appreciate the important word is “could” but surely that’s the whole point of most risk reducing measures? Mocking that notion won’t change it so let’s not pass this rather silly and misguided proposed law.
Report abuse
I can run as fast as a bicycle. Should I wear a helmet?
Report abuse
Helmets certainly should be made compulsory items for pushbikes. This is 2010 not the dark ages of rediculous people taking rediculous risks.
Report abuse
Hurrah, another law for everyone to ignore. While we’re at it, why dont we ensure that every migrant worker wears an arm band that denotes their country of origin for easy ident- wait a minute, this is starting to sound very familiar…!
Disclaimer: The above comment is deliberately flippant. I dont see the point in a law coming in to force people to do it, but it might discourage some of the idiots who insist on cycling in the midde of the road with no lights during rush hour on the dark roads. Doubtful, on reflection.
Report abuse
Cyclists might take more risks if they wear a helmet because it would impart a false sense of security.
I know a man who has a brother whose next door neighbour knew someone who worked with a chap whose sister wore a cycle helmet every Wednesday afternoon. That was quite something, I can tell you.
Report abuse
I am a hairdresser and I think that cyclists should wear helmets. In the hairdressers’ chair, that is, so that I can give them a short back and sides. Ah, it is enough to remind me of my army days!
Report abuse
Stan Still: if you can run as fast as a bicycle then yes, you should wear a helmet.
Similarly, cyclists who only cycle at a walking pace should not have to wear a helmet.
Cricket players should wear shin pads, but only when they are batting for the other side.
Report abuse
I agree that people should not take rediculous risks when reding bicycles on the reod.
Report abuse
I fell out of bed last night. Perhaps there is a market for bed safety hats which can be made compulsary too.
Report abuse
#77 Karen that would be true if it wasn’t that the drivers will be being punished! Are the cyclists? 17-25% of accidents caused by cyclists is a pretty darn high statistic given that driving requires thinking about a lot more things at any one time.
Still, my friend (driving his car) had people run into the back of him THREE times in one weekend, there is definitely a point at which it’s safe to say that HE was doing something wrong. A cyclist could swerve out as you were starting to drive around them, you would of course hit the back of them, is that your fault?
I don’t imagine all cases of drivers hitting the back of bikes are totally clear cut. What if the cyclist was nigh on invisible?
Report abuse
#78 I accept that you can cycle while drunk, but NOT on the roads. The roads are no place for someone who is inebriated, whether driving, cycling or walking, they just aren’t. Roads are a shared resource and need to be treated and respected as such.
An ex-colleague of mine thought the idea of a bike was so he could get drunk, you should have seen the state of him when he came into work the next day though, he had come off his bike 9 times in a couple of miles.
Report abuse
#84 Add in some Armco barriers and anti-stall, and I think you’re pretty much there
Report abuse
If you go on holiday and cycle without an helmet and then come off, your insurance will not cover you because you did not take reasonable care.
If you agree with Deputy Green or not this is about taking reasonable care of yourself in the event of a fall.
I believe that adult cyclists should be paying for insurance just like motorists.
Report abuse
Read all of the comments above and there’s some pretty emotive stuff flying around, so much so that I’ve decided to wear my helmet writing this, just to be safe.
I’m naive enough to believe that both adults and parents will take the right decision by themselves. So leave alone ! (now duck)
Report abuse
Stan Still
No you can’t
Report abuse
Why do cycle helmets all look like you have your brains outside of your skull? Yuk, they are ugly things me thinks.
Report abuse
Wearing a cycle helmet is law in Australia. Its works there. And they dont moan about it either!
Report abuse
Perhaps Deputy Hill could advise on whether or not jailing people for such a heinous crime is human rights compatible. If so then forget about any sort of freedom as there will be no stopping the do-gooder health and safety fanatics.
Report abuse
Instead of making cycle helmets a legal requirement, why not enforce some sort of road test for cyclists to sit? I see so many cyclists who think they own the road and do whatever they bloomin’ well please – from undertaking, cutting up traffic at lights, nipping through red lights, or insisting on cycling in the middle of the road during peak times, these guys dont have a care in the world.
Report abuse
Jester etc
I’m glad I’ve have kept you amused during your extended school holiday. Go careful on that snow now.
Report abuse
I have noticed that most people seem to blame the driver for accidents involving cyclists – well that is not always the case! Dare I suggest that cyclists have to pass a proficiency test if they are to cycle on the roads? Drivers have to pass a test, so why not cyclists? Another reason that would put people off cycling apparently – but some cyclists do not have any road sense and believe that they ‘own’ the road! Cycling proficiency tests should be compulsory possibly reducing at least some of the accidents involving motorists and cyclists. It is not always the fault of the driver! Cyclists should wear a helmet to reduce risk of brain injury or indeed pay their own medical costs if involved in a collision where it i not clear who is at fault! What about a cyclist insurance….now there’s a thought up of debate….
Report abuse
I would prefer to drive into work than humour the likes of a deputy who is clearly spending our money on his own agendas instead of tackling the things that this island really need to get on top of.
You watch there will be a tax for people who use more than i sheet of toilet paper next – After a long and expensive consultation of course!!
Report abuse
Surely we’d not be having this debate if Mrs Bead’s 20mph campaign had a little more momentum and had made the roads safer for all?
Report abuse
Why not make it compulsary for pedestrians- Some don’t walk straight….
Report abuse
Man at 105 {Joker} WE have, as you correctly state, been off school during the snow and I have used my time constructively in my A level studies.
I am doing media studies, which allows one to see the shortcomings of unsupported, anecdotal and rather flimsy tales such as that which appears in your post. I have also learnt from doing statistics that much data can be manipulated, in this case to show the spurious case for compulsory cycle helmets. A level biology [together with a work experience stint at the hospital] has also shown the skeletal trauma which can be exacerbated by the wearing of a helmet.
Education; it is a wonderful thing and perhaps something which our politicians would rather the people did not have. Thank goodness the voting age is now 16. I know who won’t get my vote or those of most of my contemporaries!
Report abuse
people who want to go out in the snow should wear cycle helmets.
In order to raise the fashion element, they should also make it compulsory to put them on snow men.
Report abuse
When I was younger we used to go out on the BMX’s around woods or close to cliff paths, not the actual paths but on similar terrain. We were so into it we wore helmets just in case we had an accident. However, the helmets we wore at the time were proper bmx style helmets so your head was fully covered similar to a motorcross style helmet.
What worries me about wearing todays style helmets is the fact they dont cover your whole head but instead have a very unconvenient position on your head whereby there is more chance of you landing where the helmet is above your forehead and whipping your neck backwards thus possibly causing a severe neck injury.
The helmets these days are only able to stop a head injury to the top of the head and only if you land in the right place, they are not a great safety measure at all just a simple solution to what are a minority of bicycle accidents.
I have cycled for years, fallen off many times, had freinds go head over heels without helmets and its never been a problem for me or them. Because there is the slightest possibility of a head injury is no way to decide upon a new law.
If the law is to require helmets then they should be full helmets with neck braces followed by elbow pads, knee pads etc just so it is then apparantly safe to cycle. In fact while I am on one, maybe the law should also require all bicycle pedals to be made of hardened rubber with no studs in case you slip off the pedal and graze your leg.
Report abuse
I have noticed that most people seem to blame the cyclist for accidents involving drivers – well that is not always the case! Dare I suggest that drivers have to pass a proper test if they are to cycle on the roads? Drivers have to pass a rudimentary test, so why not a better one? Another reason that would put people off driving apparently – but some drivers do not have any road sense and believe that they ‘own’ the road! Proper driving proficiency tests should be compulsory possibly reducing at least some of the accidents involving motorists and cyclists. It is not always the fault of the cyclist! Drivers should wear a helmet to reduce risk of brain injury or indeed pay their own medical costs if involved in a collision where it i not clear who is at fault! What about a drivers’ medical insurance….now there’s a thought up of debate….
Report abuse
Steve 107:
“You watch there will be a tax for people who use more than i sheet of toilet paper next – After a long and expensive consultation of course!!”
Yes! But why not cut out the middleman? What do you think would be a good thing to write the consultation on? And you could just flush it away afterwards!
Report abuse
If we are going to have a law to ensure helmets are to be worn for cyclists can we also bring back registration and cycle licences. It might slow up the blatent law breaking I see all the time by this group of road users including cycling on pavements, ignoring red lights cycling up one way streets to name a few. There is a much higher risk of injury here than not wearing a helmet!
Report abuse
I find that I quite enjoy riding my bike completly naked. Being forced to wear a helmet defeats the point! I am outraged! Also if you can run as fast as a bike does it not depend on how fast the bike is going as to whether or not you should wear a helmet?
Report abuse
Does anyone know how many deaths/injurys there have been in 09 for cyclists?
In Jersey I mean, there have been alot of stats thrown up for other places already.
How big an issue is this? Perhaps this is being used as a diversion from some other issues.
P.S I dont care about Australia.
Report abuse
#113, not really because we already pay insurance. Cyclists don’t.
Of course, if the culprit for the accident cannot be established then no-one can be punished, thankfully we have that kind of law! If you want to live in a world that doesn’t you might fancy China.
Report abuse
Whilst we’re on this subject, I propose that we ban all female pedestrians from using umbrellas.
This is for the following two reasons:
Ladies tend to be shorter than men, on average. Therefore, whilst a woman pedestrian holds the umbrella over her head, this is in fact extremely dangerous for any men that attempt to pass her on the pavement as the spokes protruding from the edge of the umbrella are at ‘eye-height’ for the unfortunate man.
Secondly, it’s a well-known fact that women have little or no spacial awareness ie have no idea what’s behind them or to the side of them, they are only aware of something’s existence if it’s right in front of them.
This isn’t being sexist by the way – women have no spacial awareness but they can multi-task, whereas a bloke cannot do two things at once)
I speak from experience here, having nearly lost my sight on a number of occasions whilst trying to overtake slow-walking females on a narrow pavement… all of a sudden they’ll see something for sale in a shop window and stop dead, leaving their dangerous umbrella spokes threatening any males immediately behind.
Come on Deputy Green, please intervene and get these dangerous implements taken away from all females before we start seeing droves of chaps in casualty with eye injuries
Report abuse
One of my children would be dead or have been seriously injured if they had not been wearing a cycle helmet. As it was the helmet was badly cracked and they suffered a serious concussion.
Having said that – any responsible parent will naturally ensure that their children wear cycle helmets when using the roads. Do we really need to legislate for this?
Wouldn’t the money this is going to cost be better spent on connecting people to the mains? This is 2010 after all.
Report abuse
lets ban skiing too! surely the reckless hurling of oneself down a slippery mountainside,uninsured unprotected bar a few gluhweins & with a pretty good chance of death/injury should be criminalised. or at least you should have to pass a proficiency test. be careful – they ski on the right over on the continent so adjust your dip beam
tiddlywinks also. all those tiny projectiles – could have someones eye out.
lets have some perspective, people
Report abuse
#119, Tobias, I totally agree, however the generalisations wouldn’t work since every test I’ve had done shows my brain to be far more ‘male’ than ‘female’. I’d happily pit my spatial awareness against any man
We’d have to set tests, and introduce licences for people wanting to carry umbrellas
Good money earner for the States too.
Personally I hate the things, buy a cagoule people!
Report abuse
113, not really because we already pay insurance. motorists don’t really.
Of course, if the culprit for the accident cannot be established then no-one can be punished, thankfully we don’t have that kind of law! If you want to live in a world that doesn’t you might fancy a very small place from whence one came.
Report abuse
#123 Quite funny
Don’t know what world you live in, but I live in the real world where drivers can be punished even if they are not the real cause of the accident.
Still fails to punish the drivers that are outrights nutters and drive with no care and attention though, I’m not sure how!
And I came from a big place
Report abuse
Comment 54 Mrs Rosemary Bead – “Some of you confuse this with a civil liberty issue but seriously is the ‘freedom’ to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet really a justified human right? C’mon lets get real here, use your brains!”
Of course it’s a civil libnert issue, what else would it be. If people choose to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet then that is their choice, there is no conclusive proof that helmets offer guaranteed protection and even if they did it is only to the head. Some may take the view that in the event of an accident so severe that they were left with only their head intact that this would be worse than death. If we really are to consider nanny state intervention for people who choose to take risks with their health where is the ban and proposed jail term for smokers, half of all smokers will die of smoking related illness, of those who don’t die half will suffer a related illness, if you add up all deaths and injuries from traffic accidents it will not equate to 1% of this figure, and don’t get me started on alcohol.
See it doesn’t add up, what we have is an emotive appeal from a deputy who beleives that wearing a hlemet would have saved his son from brain injury, there is no proof of this. Not letting a 9 year old out on a bike without adequate supervision would have been a better preventative measure. Are we to pay for his mistake? I reserve the right to take reasonable risks with my life without the nanny state intervening, if they are to intervene then they must first eliminate all areas of risk greater than the one in question, see list below.
Smoking, drinking, allowing elderley people to drive without regularly checking their ability to do so, allowing construction workers to access a scaffold with a ladder, going out in the snow, allowing unprotected sex, letting cars drive above 20mph ( one for you Mrs Bead ) letting my wife cook – ad infinitum…
Report abuse
You dont need to wear a helmet whilst riding a tractor or a trike… so I’m off to buy a three wheeler, you know where you can shove your ‘helmet’ Mr Green……?
Report abuse
Should be up to the individual.
I wear a helmet as it is bloomin dangerous out there.
The car drivers moaning about the cycclists lawbreaking, you should sit at the lights around Howard davis park every morning.
I do, and at least 3 cars per time go through reds, not amber, reds.
I am there for a just a few minutes for one cycle of the lights, wonder how many drivers would be caught if the cops set up some cameras there eh??
Same on the way home.
So lets just say there are bad riders AND drivers.
Report abuse
As were all having a gripe about our pet road safety problems, mines people carrying under 10 year olds in a car unsupervised.
A driver can not supervise a “badly” behaved youngster and drive a car safely.
If a mother hears her under 1 year old baby cry out she will naturally give the baby attention to the detriment of her driving (cant blame the mother its a natural reaction).
I suggest under 10s should only be carried in cars where there are 2 adults one driving and one to supervise the youngsters. ( this would probably get more parents to share the school run).
Report abuse
If you want people to do something, either tell them they shouldn’t do ‘it’ or make a fashion statement out of ‘it’…
Let’s face it, if the cycle-shops were selling designer-label helmets (D&G, Gucci, Vuitton, etc.) which cost at least twenty times their real value, there’d be queues outside the shops and no law or comments needed!
Report abuse
To all the negative commentors:
When did it become a right, civil or other, to ride a bike without wearing a helmet?Is this like a right to freedom of speech, or a right to access to clean water?
The States have power to enact laws to protect the public – such as speed limits, seatbelt laws e.t.c. None of you complain of those laws. So why so much fuss over a law that in its very nature is designed to protect the public?
In other countries no one would bat an eyelid, but in Jersey any suggestion of change brings out the mindless who refuse to change and who use pathetic arguments, such as the right to ride a bike without a helmet, without thought or hesitation.
There really is nothing to argue about here. Its a safe and sensible approach to dealing with cyclists.
Nanny State – come on stop throwing your toys out of the pram and act lke grown ups.
Report abuse
Rosemary, you may not like other people who have a different opinion to you, but there is no need to brand them “negative” or exhort them to “act like grown ups”. That is playground talk around what is a very serious issue. I assert that the majority of people on this here island of ours are fed up to the back teeth of other people acting like they and only they are right, that everybody else should fall meekly into line, and we should all do what you want us to to do.
Enough I say. Do spend your own time and money encouraging people to wear cycle helmets if that is what you want to do. But don’t spend my money. And don’t make me a criminal because once in a blue moon I put my cycle clips on to ride round the corner to the shop to buy my JEP.
Report abuse
In our generation we rode our bikes with no hands and feet downhill shouting yahoooooo Wellington hill was the best and steepest.
We were the biggest risk takers ever and are all still here as far as i know.
Look up
Congratulations if you are a child of the 30,s40,s 50,s 60,s.
The only thing that frightened me was getting caught sneaking in the cinema without paying!
Report abuse
This is outrageous! Of course there should be a law requiring cyclists to wear a helmet. It’s such a commonsense idea that it is surprising that no such law has been introduced before.
I find it quite extraordinary that there is such negativity to the potential introduction of this law. The arguments against, in my opinion, hold no weight when considering the potential benefits to one person who has a fall.
Statistics can always be manipulated, but surely if one head injury can be avoided by requiring helmets to be worn by all, then that is a good thing.
I arrived in Jersey from New Zealand approx two years ago and was most surprised at the time that no law was in force. I was a kid in the 80s when a similar law was introduced in NZ. It created a small fuss at the time, but nobody thinks twice about wearing one now. Like a contributor has already mentioned, I find that riding a bike without a helmet now feels foreign.
I also believe that a helmet should be worn both offroad and onroad. Riding a bike and hitting your head on a rock, is just as dangerous as hitting your head on a car or road.
Lastly, to discontinue riding bikes because of this law, I believe, is absurd.
Report abuse
#129 That’s probably very true for some.
#128 Maybe you haven’t realised that most cars with the type of inhabitants you describe have warning stickers attached to them. They normally say things like ‘V(ery).I(mportant).P(rincess). on board’, ‘Baby on Board’, etc. It is very advisable to avoid these vehicles at all cost, not for their safety but for your own, years in Glasgow taught me that these vehicles, in particular, can be extremely erratic.
And much as I am completely against people holding mobile phones while driving, I cannot believe for two seconds that having a child screaming in the back is any less dangerous.
Report abuse
Mrs Bead we have already established that you have adopted this persona with the sole purpose of taking an opposing view.madam ( or sir ) the game is up, have the good grace to move on.
As Dee Mented comment 125 has already said, if we are to legislate for public safety there are many far more pressing matters than cycle helmets.Let’s ban smoking and drinking which collectively are killing half the population – or is it because they make so much money for the government that they are above reproach.
Report abuse
Some statistics relating to Cycle Helmet Use taken from http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/helmets.html
UK
Examination of 28 cyclists deaths over 15 years in Sheffield and Barnsley. Over 80% of both cases and controls had severe head injuries, but controls (an equal number of pedestrians and motor vehicle occupant fatalities) suffered more fatal injuries to other parts of the body. If helmets had saved all those who only had head injuries, at best 14 (50%) of cyclist deaths would have been prevented. On the other hand, if pedestrians and vehicle occupants had worn helmets, 175 lives may have been saved in the same period. No justification for compelling cyclists to wear helmets without taking steps to improve safety of all road users. [j983]
Australia
Review of mandatory helmet laws in Australia. Greatest effect of law was to discourage cycling. Increase to at least 75% helmet wearing resulted in decline of only 13% in head injuries, less than decline in cycling. Reduction in head injuries very similar for pedestrians, and possibly due more to speed and drink-driving initiatives than helmets. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants have potential to save 17 times as many deaths as cyclists, without adverse effects of discouraging a healthy mode of transport. [j982]
Nova Scotia
In 1997 legislation made the use of helmets mandatory for cyclists in Nova Scotia. In 3 years the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets rose from 36% to 86% and the proportion of head injuries to cyclists halved. However, there was also a drop of 40% to 60% in the number of people who cycle, with the greatest decrease amongst adolescents. In the context of reduced cycle use, those who continue to cycle but now wear helmets are no less likely to suffer a head injury than before. The number of head injuries has fallen only in line with cycle use.
However, the number of non-head injuries to cyclists over the 3 years increased by 6% in absolute terms. Relative to cycle use, those who continue to cycle are now 87% more likely to suffer injury than prior to helmet legislation.
Report abuse
Dean Jeune Library 110
I agree with your comment about anecdotal evidence, and some appear to be quoting evidence that helmets are not designed well enough or worn properly to be of use, but like you say it depends on the agenda behind the statistics. Statistics are also no consolation for the relatives of the person killed because they failed to wear the proper equipment whatever their endeavour.
My tale might be just that to those who didn’t see or hear what I experienced. I don’t know much about biology, specifically the toughness of the human skull. But I do know a bit about physics, and my common sense and general life experience leaves me to believe somebody needing to dissipate about 3kj of energy through the a small area on the top of their skull, (based on someone with a mass of 80Kg riding a bike with a mass of 15Kg travelling at 7 m/s or 15 – 16mph (equivilent to 8m/s combined)) doesn’t stand much chance. Personally I’d rather dissipate that sort of energy through 20mm of foam rather than just 5mm of skull. Assuming that’s not sufficient energy to crack ones head there’s always decelerarion to consider. Again a helmet will increase the deceleration period and therefore reduce brain damage.
So if making helmets law saves 1 or 2 lives a year surely it’s worth it? May be not to you, but definitely to the relative who has lost a loved one through a cycle related head injury.
Report abuse
Point taken about the stats but surely we should be permitted to take this minimal risk with our own lives should we so choose. As said smokers are allowed to engage in an activity that will kill half of them and leave half of the remainder with a serious illness.
Many sports are more dangerous even when safety equipment is used, is cycling wothout a helmet more dangerous than boxing or any of the extreme sports?
We need some perspective and we should be allowed to make decisions regarding risk in our own lives, I bet driving an old car without airbags and crumple zones is statistically more dangerous in the event of an accident.
Let those of us who are grown ups make our own choices – or address those activities already mentioned in order of statistical danger first.
I fear this has been inflated due to the deputy’s unfortunate experience.
Report abuse
to the joker,
saving 1 or 2 lives – this is conjecture. have you not read the supporting studies in this thread? you are statistically MORE likely to get seriously hurt should a cycle helmet law be introduced.
if you want to save significant numbers of lives, campaign to ban booze and fags (and de-ice pavements for that matter) – but leave helmets optional to the user.
whilst there may be a marginal case for wearing one, there is some anecdotal evidence that it DOES put people off cycling, which the BMA has calculated is a detriment to public health at least equal to the purported benefit imputed to the wearing of helmets.
you would save more lives also if you forced car drivers to wear a helmet – i know whereof i speak – in a car versus tree incident, my brother sustained permanent (near fatal at the time) brain injury, so can we leave it alone now?
Report abuse
It is interesting how differnt jurisdictions treat road safety differently.
In Florida, they repealed a law that prevented drivers using their mobile phones because the population at large did not like it ! As a result, a significant proportion of vehicle users appear to travel around Orlando whilst on the phone !
Also, drink driving in the US tends to get you a fine and only repeated offences result in a driving ban, presumably because if you take an American’s licence away, it prevents them from working.
Americans generally do not cycle on the road, so the use of helments is not a consideration.
Report abuse
Way back in the 1960′s there was a book called “How to lie with statistics”.
How I wish I’d kept my copy.
Report abuse
My problem with this type of Regulation is that it is totally against the spirit of the justice System which is supposed to protect our liberties and guard the weak against transgression by others. To use the same Law and Order system that we rely on to protect us from muggers, our possessions from robbers and vandals and relies very much on public support and cooperation as a “safety” campaign is wrong.
This proposal is just a further example of “official” bullying. To make criminals of people who have just cycled down the road to buy a paper or a young child playing is madness and the miles of such petty regulation that now blight our lives are probably causing more damage through frustration and resentment which ultimately lead to depression and suicide or revenge through public disorder than any good that was intended.
Leave the Law to catch real criminals.
Report abuse
Well then, presented with these statistics why aren’t governments and cycle clubs alike, campaigning for the introduction of banning helmets altogether?
And as for injuries associated with the wearing of helmets how come the BMA think they should be compulsory?
Report abuse
Leah Holmes at 124. You obviously have a sense of humour. Jolly good. A lot of commentators do not.
In your post, you stated “And I came from a big place”. Quite.
But, on the 7th December, you posted elsewhere on this site that, “I understand your point as I come from a much smaller island than Jersey”.
Is this a selective memory or a chameleon website alter ego that one clearly sees?
Report abuse
hello joker,
well, i think it boils down to commonsense and freedom of choice.
cycle racing / offroading entails a significantly inherent higher risk than meandering off to the newsagent or going for a trundle down a cycle path. there is obviously some degree of protection afforded by a helmet, for instance puncture wounds from branches and the like.
and no-one really has the time & money to waste to try and enforce compulsory non-wearing of crash helmets – that is patently absurd.
whilst writing this, i think i may have been had – i assume you were ‘joking’ but its hard to tell!
Report abuse
How exactly will a plastic and Styrofoam helmet save a cyclist in the event of a collision with a 30 ton vehicle? Oh! It won’t!
Report abuse
@ Silver Fang #146
“How exactly will a plastic and Styrofoam helmet save a cyclist in the event of a collision with a 30 ton vehicle?…”
from: helmets.org/general.htm
‘Helmets designed to handle major crash energy generally contain a layer of crushable foam. When you crash and hit a hard surface, the foam part of a helmet crushes, controlling the crash energy and extending your head’s stopping time by about six thousandths of a second (6 ms) to reduce the peak impact to the brain. Rotational forces and internal strains are likely to be reduced by the crushing…’
“…Oh! It won’t!”
Oh! but it might.
Report abuse
#145
“..cycle racing / offroading entails a significantly inherent higher risk than meandering off to the newsagent..”
Not always so (those damned statistics again) most accident occur in the near vicinity of road users’ homes.
In Jersey that encompasses most places!
Report abuse
Cycle helmets most definitely should be obligatory. Pushbikes can travel very fast especially downhill.
Report abuse