- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Children cycling - pic credit European Cyclists FederationJersey finally passes mandatory helmet law - for under 14 year olds
Cyclists in Jersey aged under 14 will now be forced to wear helmets or risk a £50 fine, after the law was changed by politicians.
The country has long lobbied for tighter laws but previous attempts to make helmets mandatory for all riders have failed.
The change in the law was brought by transport minister Deputy Kevin Lewis and voted through by States Members.
Deputy Lewis said it was unlikely that fines would be enforced but told the BBC: "It is my wish and desire that once young people get into the habit of wearing a cycle helmet for a number of years, they would wish not to take them off later on."
The proposition was first mooted in 2010 by Deputy Andrew Green MBE, Minister for Housing.
Deputy Green, whose nine year old son received a brain injury when he was knocked off his bike said: “I am delighted that this vital piece of legislation has been passed and I congratulate my fellow Members in the Assembly for taking this bold but necessary decision.”
In 2010, politicians on the island rejected by a solitary vote a proposal to make it compulsory for all cyclists, including adults, to wear a helmet, although they approved by a margin of two to one similar measures for children aged under 18.
The move was welcomed by the brain injury association, Headway Preston & Chorley.
Liz Bamber, Headway Development Officer told the Lancashire Evening Post: “Being a keen cyclist... I am staggered by the number of people still not wearing helmets.
“It is hoped that the UK will follow Jersey’s example very soon.”
Latest Comments
- Fursty Ferret 4 min 33 sec ago
I'd like to think that in addition to the very well exposed supply chain argument made by Patrick, the simply outrageous price of Shimano...
- lesterama 5 min 10 sec ago
That bike with clearance for 33c, tracklocross style, could be a winner.
- chrisonabike 12 sec ago
Hellish! Barely used, clearly dangerous, slowing competent cyclists down while pandering to the clueless, a serious threat to pedestrians, won't...
- David9694 27 min 20 sec ago
"I ran into the back of him because I was traumatised by seeing the latest petrol prices, m'lud"
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 8 min ago
Are you sure? Norway is socialist and has a very high quality of life.
- ErnieC 3 hours 31 min ago
Glad I got mine before that change in ownership.
- quadtodd 8 hours 58 min ago
And 3 of the 'workers' are just leaning!
- yellowjack 9 hours 29 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- yellowjack 9 hours 45 min ago
Sounds cool. I haven't taken an "unnecessary flight" since 1992. Flown many times since then for work, but you can't patrol the Iraqi desert, or...
- NOtotheEU 10 hours 9 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
Add new comment
67 comments
Oh, and using anecdotes about the death of a *SCIENTIST* - someone whose life's work revolved around basing conclusions on hard, sound data & logic - to argue your pet case does the memory of that person quite a disservice.
@truffy
Case 3 - when running round the school playground as a child I tripped over a wall and landed on my head, getting severe concussion
Ergo all children in playgrounds should wear helmets
case 4 - a friend tripped down the stairs and broke her leg - ergo everyone should wear full kevlar body armour when walking down stairs
case 5 - someone somewhere suffered fatal head trauma in a car crash (such car crashes being the main cause of such trauma so pick any case you like). Ergo everyone should wear driving helmets.
This 'proof by anecdote' lark is pretty easy, I must say. Though sadly its worthless. Its probably because you know, at some level, that its worthless that you throw around insults to try and bolster your point.
The most infuriating thing is that making an unnecessary car journey has far greater negative health effects (via pollution, risk of RTAs and physical inactivity both for the driver and indirectly in its effects on everyone else) than does cycling without a helmet, yet those who favour compulsory helmet laws never say a word about banning such journeys.
That double-standard makes it impossible to take them seriously or to take at face value their claim to want to reduce deaths. Given that compulsory laws suppress cycling and thus increase mortality, I can only assume that the compulsory helmet crowd (by which I don't mean those who merely suggest people voluntarily wear them, I specifically mean those who favour legal compulsion) actually like death.
Fair enough, it checks out, although the report I found states things occurred differently, but not significantly so.
Bergerac enabling toss pots.
Why is it important that he was a scientist?
Oh wait found it. Scientist = not dumb. Still not sure what point you're trying to make though.
Try the following experiment.
Part 1 Adult.
Stand next to and sideways on to a wall. Tilt your head sideways and try to touch the wall with your head.
Part 2 Child
Take a pre-pubescent child (either sex will do) and repeat the actions in part 1.
Result
Due to the fact that a pre-pubescent child as not developed the shoulder width to head size ratio of an adult they find it easier to touch their head to the wall.
Conclusion
If a pre-pubescent child falls over there is a greater likelihood of them striking their head on the ground.
That's it. That's the facts, cycling doesn't come into it and as was pointed out by SeanBolton above
"The biggest causes of head injury in Under 14s are ;
i. accidents in the home
ii. accidents in playgrounds
iii. motor vehicle accidents (as passenger)
Cycling is only a very small percentage."
Now make your own mind up!
As a side note on point iii. Nearly all occupants of cars involved in RTA's suffer head trauma. This is why Motorists Helmets were nearly made compulsory in Australia.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/helmets%20for%20motorists
For anybody interested in what happens when mandatory helmet laws are passed, take a look at http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and the explanation of these effects here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l... .
Just read this and as usual there are the "yes brigade" and the "no brigade" each being typically arsey with each other.
Why doesn't the site, when reporting on helmet stories, do like they do with fatals and not allow comments because to be honest i think everyone who comes on this forum already has a firm opinion set in stone in relation to helmet use and all that happens is that we go round and round and round in abusive / sarcastic circles.
...I used to be very pro-helmet - growing up in NZ probably had a lot to do with it. Then I read comments like the above, the references they cite, the 'references' cited by pro-helmeteers (usually including the 1998 Thompson-Ravera '88%' publication) and decided for myself that on balance and taking population-level effects into consideration, I had been completely wrong. Presented with evidence or lack thereof, minds can and do change.
Debate is good. And when one side of the argument hasn't got a leg to stand on and regularly gets its arse handed it by rational debate, that too is A Good Thing.
I reckon the contributors to the comments on this thread are either 1) retired miserable old gits with too much time on their hands or 2) the work shy or 3) the sick lame or lazy.
Who gives a monkeys about helmets! Just do what's right for you.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, go and tell politicians that the solution to cyclists getting hurt isn't helmets or hi viz, but dealing with drivers and cars.
I wear a helmet. Does it make me feel safer? No. Do I think it makes me safer? No.
The three times I have come off, I've broken a rib and twisted my shoulder and my wrist, and cut my shin (did you know that road muck seems to make for a perfectly black scar?). My head never hit the road in any case, and I'm pretty sure a helmet doesn't protect shoulders or ribs or legs.
But my wife said she'd kill me if I got hurt riding and wasn't wearing a helmet. So I wear a helmet
Always glad to get a reference. I presume it was in all the Belgian grotty rags because the fund understandably doesn't dwell on the detail? I apologize to you for assuming you had an fictional source.
I guess I should also apologize to people who have looked at the evidence for engaging with the fallacy that individual cases mean anything. V' interesting that a fund based upon a tragedy happening to a scientist in a Pharma Co has concluded counter to the sort of statistical studies and results that are bread and butter to Pharma Cos when gauging effectiveness of their products.
I find that depressing even if much of it may be due to admirable loyalty to an ex employees family.
Nothing wrong in rational debate and i agree people will have their minds changed by such debate, however what i find distasteful is forum users basically slagging off another user purely because they dont agree with them, debate and argue yes, abuse no.
Which one are you...?
Airzound: I would love to be able to not have to talk about helmets. However, the UK seems to be full of people who seem to think I and/or my children must be made to wear them. Some of these people are well-meaning but simply misinformed, and potentially may be swayed by evidence. Others are simply anecdote obsessed idiots who just don't give a flying fuck about reality.
So long as those people exist, spreading their misinformation and lobbying for compulsory helmet laws for the young or all, the rest of us must counter that crap. Yes, it's highly tedious and annoying, but otherwise the misinformed and the idiots may well win, and then I'll have to risk fines most times I or my kids cycle.
Plus compulsory helmet laws would be the death knell for any hope of mass cycling. And without higher rates of cycling, there will never be the political will to do any of the things that *really* can improve cycling safety.
Oh, and I *never* talked about helmets, until a cycling club I had joined decided to bring in a rule requiring them (because someone had crashed and hurt their fucking leg). They brought in this rule by fiat - some inner clique just updating the rules by themselves, which was against the constitution of the club.
After that I realised I needed to fight the anecdote lovers with the facts.
Paul J - you said
"Plus compulsory helmet laws would be the death knell for any hope of mass cycling"
I did a short survey over a 5 week period, not scientific by any means, basically i just counted the bikes on the road i saw and whether they were wearing a helmet or not. I found that of over 900 cyclists i saw it was about 98% were wearing a helmet.
EDIT: this is the second time i've done this and the figure remained the same.
Huh? Did you happen to be doing your little 'survey' whilst watching the TdF by any chance?
I sometimes do the same exercise whilst out on my rides and it is almost always about 50/50.
There's absolutely no way that 98% of cyclists in this country wear helmets ... or any figure remotely like it. That's probably a higher proportion than car drivers who actually wear seat-belts!
Of course it *might* be that 98% of cyclists wear helmets ... because there's been absolutely no recorded reduction in KSI's since it happened.
I'm on holiday ……… which is 4) which I forgot. Ooops.
I really don't give a monkeys about the helmet issue, you or your family so it's no good ranting at me
. As I say do what you want but leave me out of your crusade. Btw critical mass rides always seem to be well attended so helmets cannot be that much of an issue. I think you over state your case.
Airzound: Bit strange for someone who wants to stay out of the helmet debate to spend time commenting repeatedly on a helmet debate.
I don't think I'm over-stating my case. MPs have tried to table private bills for UK wide legislation to make helmets compulsory, and more regional assemblies have also tried. Further, various other bodies have brought in helmet rules, including schools and sportive organisers.
Stumps: Your figures are way off from what I observe. I suspect some bias has crept into your methodology. E.g., the place(s) you're doing the observing from.
Update: A TFL study for Stumps, http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_r... - 34%, not 98%.
Don't forget Stumps is or was a police officer. In an informal survey that I undertook I found that 98% of serving police officers, out of about 900 that I spoke to, claim to have personally witnessed Andrew Mitchell calling their colleagues "plebs" at Downing St. Maybe that's where he gets his numbers from?
I feel you may be being a trifle unfair here.
1) As a cyclist we have outsiders taking the specific actions of the individual and extrapolating these actions to all cyclists. The actions of those officers and officials of the Police Federation involved in "Plebgate" Affair should not be used to tar & feather all serving Police Officers in the same way that one RLJ cyclist should not be used against all cyclists.
2) Over the period that I have been a member of Road.cc I have found that Stumps' posts have been informative, relevant and often show the other side of the coin in discussion threads that have touched upon either the law of the administration of justice.
3) I cannot remember any post by Stumps that has been needlessly offensive or derogatory.
I am not and have never been a Policeman (before anyone thinks I am).
ooh dear joeinpoole, paul j, you didnt like that did you, someone actually giving an unbiased account of positive helmet wearing.
Come upto where i work, inner city, and count them yourself but i wont hold my breath. Paul J i've found you always produce good points in your forum responces so why try and belittle what i have stated.
If you look at my previous posts about helmets its always been about personal choice and not mandatory so why should i now change tack and support something else. All i can tell you is what i found to be the case, if you dont like that thats fine.
joeinpoole - "yawn" pleb pleb blah blah blah, grow up.
Stumps: I wasn't trying to belittle you. Just saying my experience is very different from yours. Mine is based on Glasgow city. I've never seen 98% helmet wearing rates, outside of racing/sportives. Nowhere near in cities.
It's not just me either. TRL found the same, and they've likely done a much wider study. This suggests your observations are not representative, for some reason (e.g. where you're observing).
Disagreeing is not belittling. If it came across that way to you, I apologise - sorry.
Sounds like you should be wearing a helmet (and possibly body armour) around your wife rather than on the bike.
Lots of people have anecdotal evidence about the benefits of wearing helmets. They tend to wear helmets.
Lots of people quote published reports to help protect their right to ride without a helmet. They tend not to wear helmets.
Wear or don't wear a helmet based on your opinion. It really is that simple.
Though obviously the result would depend on location and time of day. There are places here where I'd estimate just about nobody wears a helmet (I'd also say that in those same places a majority ride at speed on the pavement like annoying knobheads - it would be unfair to decide from that that a majority of cyclists are knobheads).
But the real point is that what existing cyclists do has no bearing at all on the question of whether compulsory helmet laws would be yet another disincentive for the vast majority who don't cycle to take it up, so the accuracy or otherwise of your figures doesn't really matter.
Pages