Cycle law ‘will spare families heartbreak’
Thursday 11th March 2010, 2:59PM GMT.
Deputy Andrew Green.
FAMILIES could be spared devastating ordeals by yesterday’s States decision to force under-18s to wear cycle helmets, according to Deputy Andrew Green.
The Deputy, whose son Christopher suffered a serious head injury when he came off his bike aged nine, persuaded the States yesterday to back the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets for under-18s at the end of a debate spanning two days.
Although Members backed the under-18 proposal by 33 to 16, they narrowly rejected his proposal to extend the rules to adults by a single vote, with the final vote coming in at 25 to 24.
See Thursday’s JEP for full story.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Utter stupidity. Criminalising more innocents and keeping them inside on their computers. I hope the public at large refuse to obey this ridiculous “law” and the police refuse to waste time and resources on policing it.
Does it apply to unicycles?
Report abuse
Weldone Mr Green, now my son refuses to cycle to school along the cycle track and I will have to drive him . You have inflicted your personal opinion on us parents,who should be deciding whats good for our own children.
You should have better things to do with your time than worry about other peoples children,
Report abuse
To be honest I think it is the job of the parent to educate their children about the risks involved with being on the road and to enforce any rules at they set, not the states.
How many children do you think will now not cycle until they get a helmet? I will tell you, 0. This is not going to change a thing. Kids are going to get out on their bikes without helmets anyway and what will be done about it? Nothing. This was 2 days spent deciding something that was never going to make a difference.
I believe it was also proven recently that although a helmet can reduce the chances of getting a head injury, it can also increase the chances of a neck injury. I wonder if this was part of their discussion…
Report abuse
@ April Fool – Now now, Nanny knows best.
This cold weather makes me wonder if compulsary gloves, hats and scarves would be a ‘sensible’ next step.
All this from one pressure group. Imagine what we could do if we tried to enforce spending cuts on the States (it is our money after all). Just as well we now have a ‘secret squirrel’ employed on the job thanks to Ozouf (at what cost?).
Report abuse
Yet again the nanny state wins out.
This kind of legislation is unnecessary. All parents are informed about cycle helmets if child forgets from time to time that’s because they want to get on with life and join in. If you think for one moment that any child will ride a bike without a helmet and think twice about getting hurt you are living in cloud cuckoo land. This will not prevent any further head injuries it will just criminalise another section of our society the under 18’s.
I am a parent and you have to expect kids do get knocks and bangs but for the most part thanks the stars they are minor. I do feel sorry for any parent that has to go through dealing with a child with a severe head injury but creating legislation to try and prevent a childhood accident is just plain ridiculous. Are you going to stop kids climbing up climbing frames or using a slide? I think not and so you shouldn’t.
The Jersey nanny state lives and God help the rest of us from having a free will to decide as parents how we message to our children when where and why to wear any necessary protection when undertaking any sport or activity.
Just how will this new law be enforced? If a law cannot be enforced effectively then what use is the law?
I can give you the answer to that None!
Report abuse
Oh dear.
Political decisions should be based on looking at the facts (not just a single case, but the many studies that exist relating to bicycle helmet usage), and not emotions or highly personal issues. A worrying decision that betrays the house as pretty inept.
I’m sure April Fool’s little one will not be the first, and this WILL have an adverse affect on a child’s health and well being.
Let’s hope they do a study as quickly as possible to overturn the decision.
At least under 18s can’t get a criminal record, so what punishment do you dish out for refusing to wear a helmet? You wonder how many tickings off down at the parish hall are going to waste the honouries time.
Report abuse
Wearing of cycle helmets is sensible to say the least, but it is for the individual (or in the case of minors their parents) to decide. For the States to legislate on this is yet another example of Jersey becoming a petty dictatorship.
What next? Compulsory bedtimes?
Report abuse
When oh when will politicians realise, what the people want is more important than some half-baked idea from the “nanny state”, this law will be unenforceable because we cannot do anything about cyclists who break the law now as we cannot trace them with no registration number and no tax disc.
You can see it now…… don’t think he looks 18 George, think you’re right Jim quick on with the blue lights let’s stop him!
On a serious note we recently set the age of consent to 16, but this law states up to 18, how out of touch these people really are !!!!
Report abuse
What a Joke, nanny has won again.
Mind you, a year to dream up a way this law can’t be enforced – or maybe 12 years.
Report abuse
Statistics show that the introduction of motorcycle helmets didn’t see people give up motorbikes, wearing seat belts hasn’t stopped driving and people still get taxis even though the law says they must wear a seatbelt. Actually none of these laws ever seriously inconvenienced me anyway.
Report abuse
I’m sorry if what I am about to say is offensive. Has Deputy Green has been feeling the guilt of his childs accident for many years? If so he can now sleep a little easier knowing that he has made a difference in the area where it happened.
I, however, feel that the Deputy’s feelings about the condition of his dependant should not interfere in the process I go through in bringing up my own 6 month old child. When my son learns to ride a bike he will, by his parents choice, where a helmet. Perhaps Deputy Green should have shown a little more conviction on this standard many years ago and avoided the situation that he finds his family in.
How will this law now be policed? Will people need to cycle with photo ID to prove that they are old enough to cycle without a helmet? Will “offenders” be given an ASBO if they are caught?
I disagree with someone earning taxpayers money to spend time on this farcical time consuming drivel. What is the Deputy’s position on our island’s deficit? The incinerator? Social security? Possible staff cutbacks in the health department? I have no doubt that these are issues that islanders (voters) would have more interest in the Deputy spending 2 days discussing than this.
Report abuse
Well done Deputy Green on bringing to the States such an important piece of legislation. There is huge amounts of reserarch available to support the wearing of cycle helmets in children. You only have to look at the difference that the compulsory wearing of seat belts and child safety seats for children has made. Now parents will be able to tell their children that it is the law and they have to wear a helmet, as I’m sure we have all heard the excuses, of ‘I don’t like them, I will look silly if I’m the only one, they are uncomfortable’ etc etc. Wearing cycle helmets can make the difference between surviving an accident without a head injury or being permanently disabled.
Report abuse
Contrary to the headline Deputy Green has done a lot of damage with respect of youth and their relationship with the Police and the authorities. That in every instance of serious head injury the person was wearing a cycle helmet should have sounded alarm bells had States member not just focused on the “if we can save just one life” argument.
That helmets can make a difference in certain specific instances cannot be disputed but is also a fact which so many seem to ignore, that they can cause very serious injuries and even death in others, especially children using bikes in “safe” play areas. Where a helmet is incorrectly fitted or not worn or fastened correctly they offer no protection and indeed very often are the cause of serious injury or death. Had the trust statistic been disclosed the argument for banning helmets is equally as strong.
Enforcement of this Law will be difficult, discriminatory and focused on the law abiding child as opposed to those who will simply offer certain advice to the Police Officer as to where he should place his authority and refuse to stop. For those who do stop a Parish Hall enquiry, £60 fine for their first offence and a Criminal record – whilst drunken jobs are allowed to run riot in town on a Saturday night.
It is not nice to be told by the righteous zealot that if you not support this proposal any injury will be your fault but I am disgusted that so many States members displayed so little backbone and went along with it. But they will be responsible for any injury involving a helmet, for the future of every child entering the criminal justice system and for the continued breakdown in respect for the authorities that such draconian laws cause.
Report abuse
Stand down Andrew Green. using our money to grind your own personal axe…..it’s up to parents to see to it whether their kids wear them or not…isn’t it…?
Report abuse
Oh no no no no no. I am extremely depressed by this outcome. It will inevitably have a detrimental effect on the number of kids who choose to cycle – which is precisely the opposite of what we need.
Report abuse
Oh good grief – and how many days wasted debating this when there are so many other important issues that need debating. You know, Council of Ministers, the ones that you are trying to avoid….
@11 Michael, don’t be sorry at all.
And whilst “we” are at it, now that cyclists have been dealt with, are the States going to look at people on roller blades? They too can find themselves with serious head injuries when things go awry….
Oh, CoM, that was sarcasm by the way – not an idea for another debate …
Report abuse
When are we having compulsory helmets for roller blades, there have been more deaths due to head injuries in Jersey by roller blade than by cycle in a good long time.
Report abuse
I am just waiting on the first story reported of a child seriously injured whilst being chased by the police….. because he/she wasn’t wearing a helmet.
And whilst I agree that it is sensible for parents to encourage children to wear helmets, we all know that the majority of kids take them off as soon as they round the nearest corner and are out of our sight.
When this happens, who will be held accountable for prosecution, the child or the parent? Will this be dealt with in our already overwhelmed Parish Hall’s, or will this use up yet more resources and money in the youth/magistrate courts.
I sympathize with Mr Green for the tragic accident suffered by his son, but I believe his one and only reason for becoming a states member was getting this law passed.
Report abuse
Perhaps Dep Waverely and anyone who disagrees with the wearing of helmets would like to look after Deputy Green’s son for a week or two to give the family some respite!!
His accident happened within seconds of going onto a road using a friends bike when playing at the friend’s house. Not Deputy Green’s fault or the friend’s parents fault…. accidents happen.
This is why we should have rules and laws to help minor and severe accidents happening unecessarily.
If it was law then he would of been wearing a helmet. 20+ years ago helmets weren’t really thought of, only if you were cycling in races.
If an adult has an accident on their bike who will look after them if they get a brain injury? not everyone has a caring family to look after them for life. Who will pay for their care? US!!
Report abuse
Oh good grief. It’s all been said above but I just can’t help myself! So we’re introducing a law that:
- Will probably do nothing at all to reduce cycle-related head injuries, if not the opposite, if the evidence is to be believed
- Will affect thousands of people, just to *maybe* reduce an already miniscule risk among many other more serious ones
- Will probably do an awful lot to discourage many of our island’s (allegedly obese) children from pursuing a perfectly safe and healthy pastime
- Will cost the tax payer to implement and police
- Will force parents to buy their kids helmets or risk them becoming criminals
Out of interest, how will this law deal with those who don’t wear helmets properly, considering that an improperly worn helmet can actually do more harm than good? It’s just nonsense!
Report abuse
Are we asking the police to give up chasing young louts who vandalise and threaten and abuse and steal and intimidate and frighten and bully and hit and swear, and to start chasing little Johnny on his new bike? Maybe someone thinks they have a better chance of catching little Johnny. What tosh.
Report abuse
i thought we were liberated nearly 60 years ago…the states members have really lost the plot…how are they going to enforce this when the boys in blue will not investigate theft or damage unless its over £500.00……but wait…we have have some 200 people been made redundant from telecoms and postal…..they could be the next cycle helmet patrol………what a sheer waste of states members time………
Report abuse
I can not believe the comments on here regarding their kids safety.
Yes, it is up to the parents to ensure their kids stay safe but it takes the law to protect them. Seat belts comes to mind!! How many kids travel in a car without seat belts and the parents don’t care? The law is their to protect your kids when you fail to!
Out of all you who have put a comment on here who will comment back and say they will let their kid/s cycle on todays road without an helmet? ………Then you are the people the law is aimed at!
Report abuse
I wouldn’t worry too much, this law will make little if any difference.
As far as I am aware it is already illegal to cycle without lights after sunset, on pavements, up King/Queen street, or the wrong way up one way streets but children ignore these rules already. So I seriously doubt that this new legislation will make a t*ss of difference to them.
Report abuse
Mike R
“Statistics show that the introduction of motorcycle helmets didn’t see people give up motorbikes, wearing seat belts hasn’t stopped driving”
But Mike, statistics DO show that making helmets compulsory DOES stop people cycling.
Report abuse
As far as I’m concerned all should be made to wear helmets the same way it is law to wear a seat belt in a car.
Report abuse
#2 and #9 It is not law yet. About a year at least before a draft comes to the States. Helmets reduce the numbers cycling, and this increases the risk. They will find it very difficult to draft a law which forces people to do something which has the net result of increasing the risk to them. There are other serious difficulties, believe me.
Anyone who wants to help turn Jersey into a true mecca for cycling, and /or who finds that this law is bad law and wants to stop it from happening please contact me. d.wimberley@gov.je
#3 indeed. There is evidence that rotational injuries (which tend to be more serious, may be enhanced by helmets. Then there are the cases of strangulation by helmets. Both were mentioned in the States. But sadly we have a States where evidence is often ignored, if it “does not fit”. A helmet law, if it ever comes in, will damage people’s health and well-being by suppressing cycling. It will also cost the taxpayer a small fortune in inactivity diseases, far more than may be saved by the helmets.
#5 “creating legislation to try and prevent a childhood accident is just plain ridiculous.” Amen. Helmets only give limited protection in some circumstances. Worse, they give riders a false sense of security, after all the government, the police, the road safety people have all ordered the child to wear a helmet, therefore they have implicitly told the child “you are safer.” They are not safer.
Nothing has been done by this measure to create safer riding conditions, an accident is just as likely as before if not more so, and attention has been taken away from far far more important issues: the skills of the rider, the quality of the bike, its care and maintenance, to name but three.
#10 All the correctly done research shows that helmet laws suppress cycling by 20-55%
#12 “You only have to look at the difference that the compulsory wearing of seat belts and child safety seats for children has made.” Yes, indewed. Here is one difference. The UK seatbelt law came in in 1983. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries went up for a number of years, against the overall long-term trend.
#13 Yes, relations between police and the community were basically ignored. The idea that cycles cause more brain injury in Jersey than drunken brawls, is laughable. Though there are NO statistics about whether this is true, as I found out in answer to a Written Question. What is your source that helmets actually cause injuries?
Report abuse
Interesting posts about civil liberty etc.
How many of you here have first hand knowledge of brain injuries? How many of you have relatives or friends that have brain injuries as a result of a fall, or knock on the head?
How many are you aware of the emotional and financial strain put on a family as a result of a brain injury?
How many of you have visited people, interacted and helped those that care for brain injury victims?
Is it a reflection of a nanny state? Or is it simply those that live and work with brain injury wanting to do what ever is possible so that you and I, or our loved ones and friends do not suffer, just for the simple action of wearing protective head gear. Because they know, they are frontline and we are basically so unaware of the reality.
Some say let the parents decide, have those parents cared for a child with brain injury or know anyone that has?. Do they really know what it is like to see their child so full of potential and love fall off a bike, a simple knock on the head and an entire life changed in a second, not only the life of the child, but of an entire family too?
Before you claim your freedom has been taken away from you, go and work at Headway, go and spend time with people who have brain injuries. Then and only then make your comments.
Go and walk in the shoes of the support staff, the families, the friends, the victims. Do it for just one week, 5 little days and witness first hand the effect of a one second fall has on a lifetime.
Maybe the JEP can do an article on the real effect of a brain injury and help educate us all.
Report abuse
Comparing cyclists wearing helmets to motorists wearing seat belts is ridiculous. A seat belt prevents motorists from being ejected from the vehicle and keeps them within the relatively safe cocoon of the interior.
People do not realise how little protection a bike helmet actually offers, and it is well documented that cyclists wearing helmets are lulled into a false sense of security and therefore take greater risks than their more vulnerable counterparts.
Do I wear one? Yes, usually.
Why? To set a good example to my children – who I ask to wear a helmet too. When they are old enough to be make their own informed decision (probably before they are eighteen) they will choose whether they wear helmets or not.
Want to make the roads safer? Make a law that makes motorists leave home five minutes earlier in the morning, so that they:
A) Don’t feel compelled to overtake cyclists when there is insufficient space, brushing past their shoulders at 30+mph
B) Don’t feel compelled to overtake cyclists on blind bends. When a vehicle suddenly appears coming the other way what are they gong to do – opt to crash into it head-on, or swing back to the nearside and clean the cylist off the road?
C) Have time to clear condensation from the inside of their car’s windows so that they can actually see cyclists.
The expression “Sorry mate, I didn’t see you.” springs to mind.
Report abuse
So once again, rather like GST, the States ignore the electorate’s views, if the comments above are anything to go by.
One sympathises with Deputy Green, but his son is just one case and tragic accidents will happen whatever rules and laws are put in place. It will just be different sort of tragedy, such as neck injury causing quadriplegia instead of head injury.
STOP NANNY in her tracks and support Daniel Wimberley!
Report abuse
For a number of years there has been an excellent education process which has had an almost 100% success rate in getting the message to people about the benefits of cycle helmets. So much so that it is very rare to see a “faster” cyclist, racing through traffic not wearing a proper fitted helmet safely secured.
At a stroke deputy Green has destroyed this good work – now that it will be a criminal offence there is no safety message. A cycle helmet has become just another piece of nanny state legislation that will reduce our children’s abilities to understand and manage risk. There will be many accidents with children wearing insecure or badly fitted helmets [because the Laws says you have got to] suffering unnecessary injuries.
I think the argument use was “If we can save just one life” but none seemed to have considered “at what cost”.
Report abuse
I think the comments i have read here are just completely idiotic- HAS any one of you ever seen somebody with a brian injury ? I have, and believe you me, you would not want to be in that person’s shoes. I am a motorcyclist and a cyclist, and for many years i used to cycle without a helmet-practically all my life, until about four years ago when i was just cycling along, minding my own business , when a car just ran into me from behind, next thing i was over the roof, and narrowly missed the sea wall ( by a foot ) with my head. It was only good fortune i was not dead, or suffered a serious head injury. That is what drives it home to you, PERSONAL EXPERIANCE- and since then i have met a few people who were not as lucky as i was. Wake up you poor innocents-Anything that will protect you from injury is a good thing. You only have one head and one life . D’ont risk it.
Report abuse
Maybe some stats here, how many brain injuries have been caused by not wearing a cycle helmet as opposed to those none cycling brain injuries?
I know a few people with brain injuries before the pro nanny state go on – all their injuries caused through a trip or fall in a NONE CYCLING ACCIDENT!!!!!!
A moral victory for Andrew Green to ease his conscience?
A damaging effect for the rest of us I feel – an impossible law to enforce – just like cycling on pavements, without lights etc. A sheer waste of tax payers money and states time on such a trivial matter.
This has just taken the fun out of cycling.
Report abuse
There are some posters here who seem to think this law is a good idea because it will “save lives”, or, in the dumbed-down vernacular, “if just one child’s life is saved, it’s worth it”.
When Deputy Green’s son suffered his injury, over 20 years ago, very few people wore cycle helmets. Now, the vast majority do. Education has achieved this: the law is unnecessary.
If laws had the sort of direct effect on behaviour as some people believe, there would be no drug abuse or violence in the Island, yet we all know that such events are commonplace. Perhaps more on point, every day you can see people cycling on pavements, despite this being illegal.
Legislation like this simply creates contempt for the law, a belief among increasing numbers that laws are passed which will not be enforced and so can be ignored. That undermines every aspect of our society.
Report abuse
You know i wonder how I survived childhood? Biycycles, horses, no seat belts in cars. Swiming in the sea, drinking full cream Jersey milk. Walking to school, along ROADS! Mind you I was warned, about age 4 about being out in sun to long as that can cause skin problems. Sorry, the States haven’t caught up with that UK panic yet. Ah well. Don’t eat anything, don’t drink anything, and above all,don’t breathe the air.
Report abuse
So when a child breaks his/her neck because the cheep polystyrene bucket on their head caused unnatural stresses resulting in complete paraplegia who will apologise to those parents, who will give them a break from the constant care they will require.
Kids fall of bikes often
kids get hit by cars (thankfully) not very often, A cycle helmet is at its most dangerous when being worn in a minor falling off incident the helmets sticky out rear bit gets caught on whatever and wrenches the head forward, SNAP !!
A helmet would be wise for head down arse up racing cyclists who may be in impact incidents of 25 MPH +. But for the average kid riding with their mates a much better use of the States time and money would have been to introduce compulsory cycling proficiency tests and insurance before bikes can be ridden in public places.
I wonder what deputy Greens response to the above parent will be,
Sorry ?
Report abuse
Donald Pond
Congratulations on an excellent, common sense based comment
Report abuse
@ Rozeljoe #28
“How many of you here have first hand knowledge of brain injuries?…”
Only relevant to this law if that injury was from a cycling accident.
“…How many of you have relatives or friends that have brain injuries as a result of a fall, or knock on the head?…”
Again, we’re talking about cycling accidents only with regard to this law.
“…Is it a reflection of a nanny state? Or is it simply those that live and work with brain injury wanting to do what ever is possible so that you and I, or our loved ones and friends do not suffer, just for the simple action of wearing protective head gear. Because they know, they are frontline and we are basically so unaware of the reality…”
What percentage of brain injuries are caused by non-cycling accidents? Will these frontline workers next try and pass laws to make helmets compulsory for adults? Then roller skating? Ice skating? Horse riding? (if it isn’t already??) climbing a ladder? Running for a bus, getting off a bus, standing while on a bus? While drunk? While playing sport of any sort? Etc. etc.
My problem with this legislation is not that it’s a bad thing to wear a helmet in some circumstances, just that it’s going to be impossible to police and properly enforce the law as intended.
You’ve mentioned the financial and emotional burden on families effected; if a child falls off it’s bike while not wearing a helmet today yes there is that burden, if it happens under the new law there’ll be the added burden of the parents being prosecuted for negligence, very few other times will this law be used.
To constantly say a parent can’t consider the impact of a child’s injury is frankly a little insulting to parents’ intelligence. I think people know the risks, but in life you have to decide which risks to take, otherwise you end up doing nothing.
I would say that at least half the children I see wearing helmets don’t have them correctly fitted, this will possibly cause more harm in ‘minor’ accidents than having no helmet would; how is the correct fitting going to be policed?
“…Before you claim your freedom has been taken away from you, go and work at Headway, go and spend time with people who have brain injuries. Then and only then make your comments…”
I’ve known people with brain injuries, albeit none through cycling accidents; I’ve known a hundred times more people who’ve had cycle accidents and received no head injury whatsoever. I guess you’ll have to allow me my opinion, and that is that this law is unnecessary, will not be properly enforced or policed in the manner the do-gooders intend, and will be the cause of more problems than a simple education policy would.
Report abuse
On the bright side, this will cut down on underage drinking.
Anyone seen with a cycle helmet who goies into a pub we can assume they will be under 18. Because all 15/16/17 year olds obey every law anyway!
Report abuse
If you realy want the children to enjoy safe cycling rich or poor spend the money on giving them free cycle helmets. Infact why don’t you design a helmet with the message on it and use it to premote your green tourism.
Do something positive and stop waving sticks.
Report abuse
Can I point out one flaw in all this.
It was made LAW to not drive whilst using a mobile phone. I have seen many many idiots driving with a phone stuck to their ears. In fact a lady driver with her glasses on the end of her nose texting someone nearly ran into the back of me at the bottom of Beaumont Hill a few weeks ago. Had I not tooted my horn, as I was very aware of her texting whilst cruising down the hill she would have hit me.
It is LAW to wear seatbelts in the rear of a vehicle now, regardless of your age. Yet I see many many people in the backs of cars not wearing the seat belts.
These two laws were made for safety yet are being blatantly ignored. We don’t have the manpower in the force to police these two laws, now we will be asking our already stretched boys and girls in blue to add more burdens to their already precious time.
Don’t you think that the cycle helmet law will go the same way. I make my daughters aged 10 and 7 wear their helmets when they are on their bikes. But they don’t want to and I agree with comment #18 big bean. Out of sight these helmets will undoubtedly be removed.
Report abuse
People bang on about the familes who have to look after the brain injured. I would suggest the the number of families in Jersey affected by head injury in realtion to cycling collisions is tiny.
How many families in Jersey have had their lives blighted by cancer? Yet cigarettes are on sale everywhere.
Why no proposal from deputies to prevent this?
Oh yes..too much fat, juicy profit going into States coffers. Misery for families is fine as long as a few quid can be made out of it.
Report abuse
“Infact why don’t you design a helmet with the message on it”
I’ve already done that. Mine says
“Braindead?
Join the States.”
Report abuse
To answer all the post on have you ever seen a person with a brain injury? ( see my first post #5) Yes I have and I have worked with these people on a voluntary basis. My view still stands.
The state is just pandering to one or two cases although tragic will still happen. Health and safety can not remove all dangers or risks. Health and safety is an attempt to protect you from unseen or unaware risks where these can be quantified. It is not a big sticking plaster to be rolled out when ever anything happens that was just an accident through misadventure or just plain bad luck, or should not be used (as in this instance) to criminalise another section of society.
This legislation is a complete waste of time the messaging about helmets had got through.
Go find out what would be the most singular positive impact to Jersey society would be and act on that insead.
Once this is done repeat the operation over and over then electorate would then act in a positive way towards the states, offices and employees.
In business we have program call a BPI process. It is a framewaork for improving business process for both the customers, staff and the business perhapse its time to apply this process to everything the states do.
Some times when you look at a process to actually fix the issue it would consume more resources than just leaving the status quo. I think this is what has just happened with this new law on cycle helmets for under 18′s.
Report abuse
I think it is excellent! I cannot abide cyclists on public roads so the more rules and laws that keep them home the better!
COMPULSORY CYCLE INSURANCE!!!
(for all the damage they do when they scrape past cars and knock pedestrians down)
&
CYCLE REGISTRATION PLATES!!!
(so the people who ride like they are on some kind of offroad BMX course down the highstreet can be identified!)
Lets put a stop to these non road tax paying menaces!
Report abuse
The States have, as ever, shown a complete inability to think outside the box. Instead of requiring cyclists to wear helmets they could have required all pavements and walls to be made of soft material. This would not only reduce injuries but also could have been part of the process to boost the economy. Much better than digging up and replacing perfectly good roads, imo.
Report abuse
Laws should be made to prohibit and restrict activity that is truly criminal. It is not the responsibility or the obligation of a government to criminalize ordinary activity that might or might not be dangerous. Whilst the intention of this new law is well-meant it will not stop people having accidents and will only serve to create friction between an already frustrated youth and parents and authorities.
I am truly sorry for those of you who comment above with experience of people with cycling head injuries but would you wish that same person to be penalised for the circumstances of their injury? Because that is exactly what this law will provoke.
RB
Report abuse
I don’t like the States telling me what to do any more than the next guy, but honestly, this really is a Slam Dunk!!
To all those opposing this law, Are you willing to pay the £1000,s and sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds in medical bills should you, or your child have an serious accident? Are you willing to risk your child’s health and saftey (not to mention their future) just to prove that the law will be difficult to enforce?
Please let us know who you are so we can let the hospital know you will be paying for your families own medical bills should they be in a cycle accident.
Report abuse
I think the most scary point of all of this is that states members are using their positions to pursue personal goals!! are they not in that position to pursue the goals of the people who vote them into that position. US! and judging by the comments here its pretty clear we dont want this law and will ignore it anyway.
Face Palm @ 42
This post pretty much says it all. If the states are sooo concerned about our safety why can we still by cigarettes and smoke as many as we like until were coughing up blood. Or we can go to the shop and buy has much alcahol as we like and drink ourselves silly until we cant stand, see or think and we are throwing up all over the place. Surely theres more head injuries caused my drinking and falling over then cycling. But as Face Palm says as long as the public suffer to make the states money then its ok. but one states member feels guilty for an ACCIDENT (my sympathies, but it happens) and suddenly public safety is top of the list!! nonsense!
If this law only applies to children – Then are we assuming that while children are playing football, cricket, Rugby, chasing eachother round estates, climbing trees, walking to school, swimming in the sea, climbing rocks on the beach, roller blading, skateboarding the list goes on they are absolutley safe. its only riding bikes that children are at risk.
Kids will be kids. I know i used to ride my bike everywhere, I used to climb trees and all the other stuff that kids do, and i have my fair share of bumps scraps and scars as a result. Its called growing up!!
Heres an idea why dont we put all kids in a little bubble where they can come to any potential harm, have no fun and no life. Then as soon as they are 18 we can take the bubble off and watch them fail miserably becuase they didnt learn the lessons which we all learnt thats all part of growing up.
If you want to reduce accidents caused by cycling then cycling profiecency as eductaion is the way forward. I imagine theres alot of parents who may teach their children how to ride a bike on the lane outside their house but not the highway code or how to cycle on a mainroad etc.
Report abuse
So when this becomes law, if a policeman sees someone riding without a helmet they’ll be obliged to stop them and demand ID to prove they are over 18…? Meanwhile, whilst our boys in blue are busy checking the cyclists credentials, someone round the corner is getting mugged. If it HAD to be made law then surely it would have been better to be a blanket requirement for everyone, regardless of age. This is basically unworkable.
I’d always make my daughter wear her helmet, but I strongly disagree that it should be the law – our police force have better things to do than worry over such trivia as this. Indeed, as stated earlier, it would appear that Andrew Green has been on a mission for some time to get this passed, perhaps to ease his own conscience. Well Mr Green, you’ve gotten your way but also alienated most of the electorate.
I concur 100% with the excellent post my Donald Pond at comment 34, in that this creates contempt for the law.
I for one will be taking up Daniel Wimberley’s offer to email him in order to voice my disagreement and I would urge others to do the same. From the comments above it seems that the vast majority of people oppose this legislation – perhaps if we all stand up and be counted then the States may just reconsider.
Report abuse
Slam Dunk, it would appear you have skimmed accross much of the comments on here.
The main argument is the insult to us as parents. We all know that there is a danger to children on their bikes. Most people will always put a helmet on their childs head if they are out with them.
The point people are making is that we are now being told that we are punishable by law if our child does not have a helmet on. This means that Jonny and Timmy can’t ride round to each others house round the corner without putting a lid on and how many 10 year olds react to something because it is the law?
As parents we try to teach our children to be safe. We try to teach them by our own standards. Should we ask the States to pass a law that all children under 7 should be in bed before 8? This will make bed time much easier for parents because you don’t have to negotiate with your child that it is time for bed. You just tell them it’s the law.
I want to think for myself. I want to teach my children right and wrong myself. I don’t want people like Deputy Green telling me how I should bring up my family. As far as I am concerned he did not do the job properly himself 22 years ago which is why this is now taking place so he should not be a preacher of what is right and wrong for children to do.
Report abuse
‘Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmets laws in the USA’
A UK report takes a close look at the issue of bicycle helmets and comes to some surprising conclusions. It documents that cycling reduced for 7 –11 age group by 29.9% from 1998 to 2007 and relates children gaining weight to fewer children cycling.
The health benefits of cycling are considered in detail and with the use of a WHO formula for quantifying the health gains and comparing to the loss from accidents, it concludes that helmet promotion and legislation may have resulted in 1020 – 2040 premature deaths per year in the long term.
It investigates cycling fatalities in 3 parts and considers the force of impact in such instances is so significant that most protection would fail. States with helmet laws are compared to states without and it finds little difference in reduced fatalities. By comparing the size of a bare head to one helmeted it deduces that helmets could increase the number of impacts by about 125%.
The report will be presented in the UK at the University of Bolton on the 30 March as part of a conference on ‘Promoting health through cycling’.
For a copy of the report, contact:
Email Colin@vood.freeserve.co.uk
Report abuse
I think a lot of people writing here seem to be missing what the real point of making this law is for. People do not like being told what to do at the best of times ( myself included ) so i can see what people are talking about, big brother etc.
However, the real point is this. It is really to persuade people to wear a helmet, simply because should you have an accident, for whatever reason , and you land on your head, you are more likely to be able to survive that accident than just your skull splitting open on the pavement. Roads now are completely different than back in the 70′s 80′s. Loads more traffic, loads more risk. Motorcyclists like myself have to wear a helmet. This was not always so, so what is the difference ? I also remember that poor lady Zana, who was roller-blading and landed on her head not wearing a helmet. She is now dead. Just think about it. Personally, i do not think legislation does not go far enough, i would like everybody who embarks on two wheels or a skateboard obliged to wear a helmet. It’s only commonsense.
Report abuse
Runner Bean @47
Best post so far! Totally agree
Report abuse
i think it’s about time every body who uses 2 wheels, eg, bikes .,roller blades, and even skate boards should wear helmets, there are some really nice ones about now, i have even seen a mohican helmet!, you even see most children and loads of adults on the snow pistes now all wearing helmets, in fact, you draw more attention to yourselves if you are not wearing one, as you are thought of as stupid,
it’s no use saying if only…….. when a member of your family is badly hurt, or even worse, dead,
and remember, most times it is not your fault if you get a fall, but more likely , some stupid 3rd party, who did’nt see you.
Report abuse
Justifying any new safety related legislation with the comment ‘if it saves ONE life’ we should really address road safety as follows :-
All roads to be widened to provide adequate foot paths and cycle tracks on both sides.
Crash barriers to be errected to prevent cars contating pedestrians / cyclists
All roads to be adequately lit at night
In other areas, ban :-
Rugby / Football / Boxing / Ski-ing / Sport in general
People joining the armed forces
All employment, other than that that can be provided in a cosy, safe office to be outlawed
Food / Consumables
Ban tobacco
Any food that could cause choking
Of course all the above would be impossible and expensive, but IF ONE LIFE IS SAVED…..
Report abuse
Bicycle helmet legislation has FAILED wherever it has been tried, and the local politicians in those areas know it but admitting they actually harmed rather than protected is rather difficult for them.
Not long ago Norway decided to not go the helmet route after deciding that the 14% INCREASE in risk that they determined resulted in Australia and New Zealand was not something they wished to impose on their citizens.
Even the UK, despite strenuous efforts by BHIT (say it aloud), the local branch of the helmet church, to use invalid or misleading data to persuade them have resisted. And now Jersey falls.
This is a triumph for helmet manufacturers, a huge loss for health and safety. Overturn it before it does too much damage, you have been conned -sorry to be blunt.
Report abuse
There is one way to avoid any child being injured on a bike. Don’t let them ride one. Don’t let them climb tress, that was another English one at one stage, don’t let them walk up stairs. For their sake avoid games like football, rugby, roundrs, netball! The stress on young joints as they jump! Why not try EDUCATION? Explain the risks and take a parent’s responsobility for your children. If you allow a child to take part in any activity where there is risk, then they risk getting hurt. The BSI standard for cycle helmets is a lot lower than that for Horse Riding Helmets. Even with the latest protection requirments for Equine competion people are still injured and sometimes killed. I’d never wish hurt on any child, but knowing from my son’s life, kids get hurt. Hopefully only minor cuts nad brusies. But for the child’s sake strike a balance! The child that has never done something that scared them, and overcome that fear has and never will live. Adults, you know the risk acess it yourself. I spend all day driving, without a seat belt! Fare stage Buses aren’t required to be fitted with them
Report abuse
“Personally, i do not think legislation does not go far enough, i would like everybody who embarks on two wheels or a skateboard obliged to wear a helmet. It’s only commonsense.”
It is not commonsense. Just because there is a risk does not mean legislation is necessary. Otherwise why not take children away from those who smoke or who are overweight – it being a fact that the children of such parents have a lower life expectancy than others. Why not ban all sorts of motorised traffic as the risks from driving a car are greater than those of sitting on a sofa? After all, its only “common sense” that if kids are watching TV they can’t get brain damaged through a car accident while cycling.
The job of a government is to allow society to function in harmony, with the maximum amount of freedom and the minimum amount of discontent or interference. The reaction on this website should be enough to tell any sensible person that this law is wrong. Before making anything illegal there should be an OVERWHELMING majority in favour of the law. Else democracy has become nothing other than the tyranny of the majority.
What harm does someone cycling without a helmet do to you? And if the best you can do is – “well, they might hurt themselves and need time in the hospital” then ban smoking and prevent the obese from accessing public health first. Otherwise show a bit of tolerance.
The very great French diplomat Tallyrand once said that zeal is the enemy of democracy. This legislation is borne out of zeal – understandably so, for we must feel sympathy for Deputy Green and his family’s tragedy. But hard cases make bad law, and this is a bad idea for anyone who values freedom and democracy.
Ah, democracy. Now, can anyone tell me if this law was in Deputy Green’s manifesto, or can I assume that he was either deliberately withholding it from the electorate or that he only thought of it after he was elected? Where is the overwhelming evidence that people want this law?
Report abuse
Lotsa good posts.
First things first. If you want to stop this Law, and remember, ADULTS ARE NEXT, then contact me. Also if you want to help make Jersey the Cycling Champion of the Channel, or whatever you want to call it, then contact me: d.wimberley@gov.je
#48 Slam Dunk and #53 “It’s only commonsense.” Trouble is it isn’t. 1) helmet laws reduce cycling. 2) The fewer cyclists the greater the risk for each cyclist. 3) therefore helmet laws increase the risk for each cyclist. I do not see how they can draft such a law.
#52 reference has X-Ray pictures of a helmeted head. Just go take a look at the increase in size, and read the commentary. And then come back and tell me that wearing a helmet is commonsense.
#32 “Anything that will protect you from injury is a good thing.” Like speed limits? Or real tough enforcement of drink-driving? Helmets are obviously a diversion from the real job in hand, which is real road safety, i.e. fewer accidents. But the signs are the States will duck on speed limits. Will you help?
#41 has anyone stopped to think why children remove helmets? Headway’s line is that it is peer pressure. Maybe it is that cycling is MORE FUN without. Oh dear! Fun, what on earth is that? Quite possibly those that do not ride at least once a week should be banned from posting here, just as in 1 ½ years time, people who do not wish to wear a helmet will likewise be banned.
28 Rozeljoe
Of course brain injury is terrible. But just 1%, just 1% of head injuries in the UK are from road cycling. And the stats for Jersey bear this out, that there is not this massive problem that needs a law. On honest risk analysis, pedestrians and motorists should wear helmets too. But not a word from Headway on this. Why? And what does Headway think about the suffering and cost of inactivity diseases?
#38 writing about #28, spot on.
#42 “How many families in Jersey have had their lives blighted by cancer? Yet cigarettes are on sale everywhere.” And #44 writes: “Go find out what would be the most singular positive impact to Jersey society would be and act on that instead.”
Exactly. This proposed law is selective, arbitrary and targets one group of road users only, curiously, the most vulnerable. No risk analysis, see my comment re #28 above. The States should be rational, and prioritise and then act in effective and intelligent response. Gorblimey! Suggest you go and get a new lot. It was generally the worst debate I have seen in my time in the States. But it is up to you folk to do something about it.
#49 jersey Boy Exactly. Please everybody read this post about growing up and learning to live.
Report abuse
#57 kiwi swilling cyclist: please provide the reference for your claim about Norway. Did the government there do a proper formal risk assessment, thatb would be a useful thing for our TTS Minister Mike Jackson to see, or did they just do a quick decision, as in the UK?
The UK Department of Transport commissioned a report into the effectiveness of cycle helmets. This 100+ page report said: [sorry, but we cannot say for certain if they work or not] (I have translated into plain English).
The DfT also knew the research into Safety-in-Numbers, and they knew that helmet laws suppress cycling.
So they decided that it was “off the agenda”
And in Jersey . . .?
Report abuse
about my previous post.
I meant “they decided that a helmet law was off the agenda.”
Report abuse
two more days waisted at the states.
What about anti discrimination laws ?
What about anti corruption laws ?
Surely they don’t want nobody to mention this.
Report abuse
#59 Donald Pond.
Best not to worry too much about “Common Sense” Donald. It must be one of the most contentious and subjective idioms in the English language and is mainly used to justify a point of view!
Report abuse
it is morally acceptable to disregard an unjust law (not quite the same league as ML King or MK Gandhi, but the precedent is there), and the widespread refusal to obey at a stroke renders that law useless.
the one thing i am grateful for in all this debacle is the revelation that in some circumstances, a regular foam packed & peaked cycle helmet increases the risk of serious injury
- as soon as my kids can ride, they will be kitted with flush fitting skateboard style-helmets (all said and done, they will bash their heads, and granite hurts a lot) – and if they object, then they can walk.
and not because of some damn fool law, but because i (not Andrew Green, nor anyone else) am responsible for the safety and well-being of my children. they will also be taught not to stick bare metal objects in electrical sockets, that they cannot fly from tall buildings, play in traffic etc.
Report abuse
Perhaps drivers wouldn’t overtake dangerously if cyclists were a bit more considerate. When I used to cycle, I was aware when the traffic was starting to build up behind me, and I’d stop and pull in to let it all pass. I didn’t see why I should hold everyone up. It’s a shame how many cyclists insist upon struggling up a hill with a dozen vehicles crawling along in their oh-so-slow wake. Just pull over for a moment, catch your breath, and let the traffic pass! I did.
Report abuse
Common sense should dictate that any child suffering a head injury gets medical treatment as soon as possible. That this Law will now focus on prosecution and punishment there will always been a natural reluctance to seek such assistance. Even if the child was wearing a helmet or the injury not cycle related you are still going to placed under suspicion. Deputy Green’s child was not wearing a helmet – can he not imagine how much more damage and suffering he has caused to future victims who rather than receiving the not the help and sympathy that he received will be faced with arrest and prosecution.
Deputy Green your Law whilst possibly well intentioned is wrong and will cause far more pain and suffering which you will not doubt will refuse to acknowledge. Already from the comments from your righteous supporters of such legislation it is apparent that this law has fuelled the intolerance that is already blighting and dividing our society.
Report abuse
I think that any parent who lets their kids cycle without a helmet anyway is a complete douche. It is not cool to ride without a helmet just look at the best mountain bikers in the world, you wouldn’t see them without a helmet.
Report abuse
Well at least is now not only Anne Pryke who is the only one to come up with useless ideas….
Report abuse
This is the best news to come out of the States in a long time. I personally think it should have been extended to everyone. Great work Deputy Green.
I am cyclist who has previously been involved in a crash with a car. I was hit by an errant driver and hit my head on the road with significant force. My helmet cracked, saved my head, and I was told by a specialist doctor that it saved considerable damage. I personally would never jump on a bike without one, and am staggered that anyone else does.
Personally, I think that Wimberley’s plight is wasted. Get behind the new laws, seek an extension to everybody, save a few heads, and act like a true leader in your community.
Report abuse
Nearly ran over a man riding up Marina Avenue against no entry sign. Yards away is Samares Avenue which he should have used. Saw postman the other day in Gloucester street go through no entry and mount pavement.
Why do they do it? Guess who they would try to blame in the event of an accident?
Report abuse
I will never were one, my choice.
Report abuse
My whole family cycles as our favoured means of transport, all without any form of protective headgear. So today I took myself of to the Library to do some research on the matter of cycle helmets. Reading a book called Cyclecraft by J.Franklin ( a consultant and registered ‘Expert’ in cycling skills and safety), under the paragraph titled ‘Helmets’, He sets out the facts concerning cycle accidents and ends the acticle by saying that “some studies have concluded that the risk has been increased.”( by wearing a cycle helmet!).
Report abuse
to 66 helmet refuser…
playing devils advocate, i hope?
you cant seriously consider it reasonable or in any way excusable for a motorist to overtake a cyclist in a dangerous manner! (there is, funnily enough, already a law against such behaviour)
if motorists feel that waiting 30 seconds for a suitable place to pass is too high a price to pay, perhaps we had better ban horses, tractors, buses and old folk from using the roads. and free blood pressure tablets for the devastating effect of having to wait at traffic lights
to Daniel Wimberley – excellent effort. i do wonder just how many states members most-used-part of their anatomy ever graces a saddle, incidentally
Report abuse
Yoyo (68) Come on now …. mountain bikers cannot realistically be compared to road cyclists.
Report abuse
Tobais (50) “So when this becomes law, if a policeman sees someone riding without a helmet they’ll be obliged to stop them and demand ID to prove they are over 18…? ”
Does anyone else remember a good few years back now when a police person (I don’t remember if it was male or female) dared to do their job and stop a child for cycling down King Street? They nearly got verbally stoned to death in the JEP for daring to uphold the law when the infidel was only a child. Now all of a sudden it will be OK to stop children for cycling infractions? !!
Report abuse
#66 It’s interesting that you did that off your own back. In rural parts of Scotland where there are few overtaking opportunities there are signs politely asking that if a slower driver (or heavy vehicle) starts to get a queue build up behind it that it pulls over and lets them past before proceeding on its way again. There are certain places where this wouldn’t be that easy for a cyclist but also some places where (only if a queue is forming) they could pull aside and make it easier for people to pass. Maybe this would help the cyclist/driver relationship?
Report abuse
Bicycle helmet laws a poor idea
In the UK about 1 in 3 people die due to heart and circulatory disease that cycling can help to prevent, compared to about 1 in 100,000 who die due to cycling accidents.
Helmet promotion and laws have discouraged children cycling by about 30% to 50%. Surveys from Melbourne showed 30 more teenagers wearing helmets but 623 fewer cycling after their helmet law.[I]
Norwegian road safety researchers stated: “There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent.”
The 14 % figure is quoted on page 28, it is on the web, Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007.
Report abuse
Dear Deputy Green, I acknowledge you sincerity but you are seeking to remove responsibility from the individual. What is your real objective? Cycle helmets or a safe environment? I fear the law of unintended consequences will result in your proposals being a retrograde move.
Do your want more cars, skateboards, roller skates, et al? I think not. Please think again.
Leah Holmes (77). Good idea. Your overtaking proposal has been law in Germany for many years.
Report abuse
Diane 76. It is as dangerous if not more on the road. It doesn’t take much to put a skid lid on and the cost nothing these days. I agree they didn’t need to put it in law but it should be common sense. Are you afraid it might mess up your hair. Walk if this is the case.
Report abuse
I am disgusted that a Charity such as Headway has taken my money and instead of using it to help others has invested in seeking political office and actively lobbying for such draconian legislation. This Law will cause much injustice and distrust between the young – those that Headway have legislated against and the Police.
I will be more careful in future which charities I support.
Report abuse
#61: The 14% figure comes from:
Making Vision Zero real: Preventing pedestrian accidents and making them less severe; Alena Erke & Rune Elvik, TØI report 889/2007, (TØI is the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research).
The figure has also been referred to in The Guardian (UK):
Elle Macpherson deserves a medal for defying the health and safety gods, Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, Friday September 19 2008.
The issue is also covered in the book “Handbook of Road Safety Measures”.
Bicycle helmet legislation does not improve health and safety, it is purely a political measure. Such measures are typically supported by people who’ve suffered a tragedy, as sadly appears to be the case with Deputy Green. Unfortunately such genuine, but misguided, grief results in an even greater tragedy.
Report abuse
Some interesting comments here. I spent a lot of time on jersey in the eightee’s but am not a resident. It was clear to me even then that the island was a police state by the draconian honorary police system it has as well as a uniformed one. This silly law is ridiculous and the only thing it has in common with seat belt laws is the evasion of your civil rights. You guys need to repel this nonsense instead of hiding in your shells, non compliance is whats needed then they will have to put all of you in jail wont they. Mind you now that they have destroyed their tourist industry they could use some of the old mothballed hotels as jails for criminals who do’nt wear their helmets ha ha! not to mention all the naughty boys and girls who drive along without their seat belts on aw tut tut how criminal in your own car. stand up people or you will be next.
Report abuse
Shall I tell you what happens next?
The law draftsman spends a year drafting comprehensive legislation on this matter. He receives instructions from a Transport Department that doesn’t even want the law.
There is a public consultation on the law and exemptions – should it apply off highways? What about on school property? What about emergencies? What is a helmet and what is a bike (not easy – do you want to capture scooters and/or tricycles or bikes with stabalisers)?
This goes on and on and then the legislation is presented to the States for approval. At that point it isn’t passed because States members realise the public are overwhelmingly opposed to it. The whole process has just been a waste of time and money and the needless allocation of precious resources to a vanity project.
If Deputy Green were to acknowledge this now and ask for the States to reconsider this mistake he would gain an immense amount of respect. But let nobody who voted for this proposition claim, come the election, that they are tough on States spending.
Report abuse
Everyone needs to stop acquiesscing to it then. If you want your children to wear them then thats fine, who would have objections to that ? its being told you must comply that gets up my nose, and watch out adults you are all next ! oh yes!
Report abuse
Yes, I did genuinely stay aware of the impact my presence had on the traffic trying to pass me, and I did pull in to let them pass. I feel the need to be considerate, amazing is it?
What a crazy idea to bring back little number plates on bike – do they not realise how easy it is for cyclists to stop and start, pop a bag or some other cover over the number plate, do whatever they like, and remove it again when they’re ready to obey the rules again? How is anybody going to catch a cyclist with an obscured number?
Report abuse
Roughly in the UK there are about 12 million people who cycle and about 120 deaths per year, 1 in 100,000.
If helmets could prevent 10% of deaths (they do not because of other serious injuries, chest for example, and they incur more impacts due to the extra size of a helmet) then 1 in 1,000,000 may be saved.
In practice about 33% may wear helmets without a law, meaning 2 from 3 do not wear them. In Australia they had a 36% reduction in cycling due to their helmet law, meaning roughly half of the none wearers stopped cycling.
So the hopeful gain from a helmet law would be one life saved from 1 million cyclists, however for 1 million none wearers, 500,000 may stop cycling, more heart disease, stroke, diabetes etc. The WHO formula used in my report (see post No 52 above) can be used to calculate lives saved by people cycling, roughly 100 lives.
The end result is a helmet laws can do 100 times more harm than the intended good. Of course with an increase in the accident rate extra harm results. Plus people are fined and children stopped by the police.
Report abuse
rodjames (63) . It was clear to me even then that the island was a police state
Jersey is still suffering the hangover of the German Occupation (1940-45). A statute book full of laws, which everybody ignores. Jersey drivers as still grappling with the Stop sign at T junctions, what hope as a cycle helmet law got in working.
Helmet researcher (87) result is a helmet laws can do 100 times more harm than the intended good
Spot on common sense.
Report abuse
Looks like there is only one thing todo ….. all cycle past Mr Green’s house sporting bare heads and chanting ‘get a life Mr Green’……..:)
Report abuse
Yoyo (80)
I do walk actually! But Is till don’t agree with you.
Report abuse
Jersey Takes a Great leap Backwards!
Jersey today declared that in the interests of global warming “we don’t give a damn”
We want to encourage as many motorists on our roads as possible, we need all the Co2 we can produce, we also need to encourage one car families to buy a second car, as this will increase our tax revenue from the tax on the fuel and purchase etc.
We also wish to discourage cycle tourists, and independent teenagers, who will now rely on “Mum’s Taxi Service”. Think of all the extra food these teenager will now be able to consume to keep their weight at the normal obese levels!
We will be able to make a fortune in future years from the heart bypass operations, and our intention to become the ‘fat capital’ of Europe is now back on course
Finally we wish to be seen to the outside world as bunch on backward thinking islanders unattached to the rest of the planet
Report abuse
The Deputy`s son had a accident, i feel sorry for him… i hope he is now well
But it should be the parents’ choice if their child wears a bicycle helmet.
FREE CHOICE …. that thing from the 60s
Report abuse
Maybe the public’s thoughts on this,will do some good in future when it comes to Nanny knows best interference….so take note….Andrew Green…..Helmet….Polisher…yes.
Report abuse
I shall not be visiting Jersey for a cycling holiday now, an that’s a fact. It’s a shame they can’t punish those causing accidents instead of taking the easy option and picking on the victims
Report abuse
Good headline. But maybe it should say “cycle law will spare families the expense of buying bicycles for their children” because I rather suspect that that will be the real effect of this silly little enactment. Donald Pond at number 84; a good and informed observation. Let’s hope that the wheels of administration turn as slowly as possible on this one.
Report abuse
Why in God’s name did the States Assembly waste time and public money debating this useless politically correct piece of pure progressive tripe, when greater fiscal and economic issues such as cutting public spending are kicked into left field and ignored?
Whether one chooses or not to buy and wear a bicycle helmet is not the business and responsibility of government – this is a purely personal decision and responsibility and should never have been brought to the Assembly and only served to prove that the Deputy who proposed this gross intrusion into our private lives is not worth the money we are paying him. Hopefully, come election time, some one in the private sector will take pity and offer him a job out back somewhere…
Report abuse
“It’s a shame they can’t punish those causing accidents”
What happens when they are the cause of their own accident? It does happen quite often with cycling.
Would you insist on prosecuting a dead or brain damaged cyclist for cycling dangerously?
Report abuse
Haven’t read the whole thread, but my kids always wear cycle helmets, just as I always wear a motorcycle helmet on the bike or a seat belt in the car. Just common sense really.
Report abuse
The Tour de France cycle race has incurred 2 deaths, possibly helmet related, in its 100 plus years of racing history. In 1935, Francisco Cepeda plunged down a ravine and in 1995 a Fabio Casartelli crashed at 55 mph. It is somewhat doubtful if wearing a helmet would have made any difference in the outcome for both riders. In comparison, the Isle of Man TT motorcycle races, between 1907 and 2009, there have been 227 deaths during official practices or races and probably most of these were wearing helmets.
Helmet warnings
1 Helmets are designed for low speed impacts and they may not provide sufficient protection in many accident situations.
2 Children should not wear helmets on playgrounds or when climbing trees. The helmet can snag and the strap can asphyxiate them. Several deaths have been recorded.
3 Some research evidence suggests helmets may increase the accident rate (14% reported) and extra care may be advised.
4 Helmets are not tested for rotational acceleration effects, which are associated with serious brain injury. They may double the impact rate compared with a bare head and also increase the torque for rotation by approximately 30% or more.
5 The consumer magazine Which? independently tested 24 helmets and reported that only 9 passed all tests and therefore even new helmets may not be reliable.
6 The health benefits of cycling generally far exceed the injury risk (see post 87 and 52) and children or adults should not be forced or coerced into wearing them if it discourages them from cycling.
7 For general cycling, in all legal and accident compensation claims, the non-use of helmets should not be used as a basis for reducing compensation
Helmet laws see
http://www.cyclehelmets.org
http://www.cycle-helmets.com http://www.vehicularcyclist.com
also
Assessment of Australia’s Bicycle Helmet Laws, refer ‘Mandatory’ can have unanticipated consequences – Civil Liberties Australia web site, 25 Nov. 2008. Providing details of the effects of the legal requirement to wear cycle helmets. http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/081125BikesHelmetPolicy.pdf
Report abuse