Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

MP's bill to make cycle helmets compulsory for under-14s fails

Bill shelved after failing to get second reading in House of Commons

A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation, officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11 will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.

Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy, as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.

At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.

"We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."

The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain Injury Trust.

Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers. This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and other benefits."

He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low, particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups. Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in these communities, while the money involved would be better spent tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of doubtful effectiveness."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

10 comments

Avatar
elstado | 12 years ago
0 likes

Just look at what happened in Australia when they made helmets compulsory.. it was devastating. Don't blame the victims, make the roads safer!

Avatar
timlennon | 12 years ago
0 likes

"The law will not criminalise those cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine."

Yeah, that sounds a fabulously enforceable idea. It doesn't entirely surprise me that someone who thinks 'duty to protect children' = 'making them wear helmets' (rather than, for example, providing them with somewhere safe to cycle ...) is also able to think of such a cock-arsed way of making law.

Avatar
giff77 | 12 years ago
0 likes

hmmm the only time I cracked my head open was while getting on the wrong side of a boot when at the bottom of a ruck. If only I had worn a helmet at the time  19  19

Avatar
mad_scot_rider | 12 years ago
0 likes

"Aaah - but my grannies sister knows someone whose son fell off his bike and would have died! Luckily he was wearing a helmet and it was very slightly scratched."

Avatar
DofeDome | 12 years ago
0 likes

So its healthier to crack your head wide open than not to cycle at all?? ...Interesting

Avatar
downfader replied to DofeDome | 12 years ago
0 likes
DofeDome wrote:

So its healthier to crack your head wide open than not to cycle at all?? ...Interesting

Why deal with the result? Its often too take by then. Deal with the causes (drivers not looking, going too fast and close, cyclists who ride like idiots through pedestrians on crossing, etc).

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to DofeDome | 12 years ago
0 likes
DofeDome wrote:

So its healthier to crack your head wide open than not to cycle at all?? ...Interesting

No, it's healthier to cycle and not crack your head open – the usual outcome of cycling – than to not cycle.

Avatar
Tony replied to DofeDome | 12 years ago
0 likes
DofeDome wrote:

So its healthier to crack your head wide open than not to cycle at all?? ...Interesting

Actually yes. The health benefits of cycling extend your life expectancy by 20 time more than the risks shorten it. And if Boris Bike riders can manage 8 million journeys so far without one of them "cracking their head open" you can quickly come to the conclusion that "cracking your head open" is an extremely rare event. You are far, far more likely to "crack it open" as a pedestrian or motor vehicle occupant.

Avatar
Coleman | 12 years ago
0 likes

"...the money involved would be better spent tackling road traffic offences which cause danger..."

Quite.

Avatar
downfader replied to Coleman | 12 years ago
0 likes
Coleman wrote:

"...the money involved would be better spent tackling road traffic offences which cause danger..."

Quite.

Seconded.

Latest Comments