From Caron Glover.
LIKE many of those who have written in on this subject, I have used a bicycle from an early age. I have had several accidents on my bike over the course of the last 30 years but none of them have resulted in any serious injuries. I have been lucky. I enjoy the feeling of the sun on my face and the wind in my hair. I also believe myself to be a sensible cyclist.

However, the point at which I must vehemently disagree with most of your correspondents on this issue is the point at which they appear to have convinced themselves that cycle helmet legislation would somehow infringe on their civil liberties.

I haven’t heard such nonsense since I had to listen to the collective moans of smokers who believed their right to smoke in public places was greater than my right to breath clean air in public places. What rubbish! Cries of civil liberty infringements should not be bandied around every time we consider a change in legislation on public safety grounds. Otherwise, none of us would be wearing seat-belts in cars because that too would be an infringement.

I lived in Australia for three years and there cycle helmet enforcement was never mentioned, nobody moaned and everybody adhered to it. On my return to the Island, Headway, the brain injury charity, was calling for cycle helmet legislation. I had to read similar letters to those published in the JEP this week from some members of the cycling fraternity, including the odd States Member, moaning about what an outrage it was to even suggest someone might introduce a public safety law for cycle helmets.

Admit it, most people would rather not wear a helmet if they had the choice. So, why not make it easy for everyone and introduce legislation. Then there’s no argument about why mummy or daddy don’t wear a helmet when they make their child wear one.

Those against compulsion must not convince anyone that their safe cycling will protect them from hurting their head if they are unfortunate enough to be involved in a road traffic accident. Just think, their head has to compete with tarmac roads and fast moving vehicles.

It won’t have a choice about whether it gets hurt so why is this argument not centred around public safety instead of freedom of choice, like so many other laws in our society?
So, let’s consider this: We don’t let children ride motorbikes. Why? Because it’s not safe.

What speed can a good quality racing cycle achieve? Perhaps up to 40 miles an hour down an average hill? Is there legislation stopping kids from hurtling down one of the Island’s many steep hills? No. Can a motorbike be heard approaching? Yes. Can a cyclist be heard approaching on a bike? No. Are many of the Island’s roads extremely narrow? Yes.

Do most cyclists, particularly teenage ones, wear reflective clothing? No. Are there speed limits? Yes. Why? For public safety reasons. Are we required to wear front and back seat-belts in all cars? Yes. Why? Because it’s considered important enough, for safety reasons, to legislate for. Are we starting to get the point? Probably not!