A new law has been passed in jersey making helmets compulsory for all cyclists under the age of 18. So, the mainland UK is not the only one with a nanny state.
In a close vote, politicians rejected 25 to 24 the law for adults, but agreed to make them compulsory for under-18s.
Deputy Andrew Green, whose son was left with a brain injury after falling off his bike, had made an emotional plea in the States to bring in the law.
So, we have a politician who suffered a persona tragedy using his position to enforce his belief that a cycle helmet would have made a difference on everyone else.
But Deputy Daniel Wimberley opposed the plans, claiming evidence showed wearing a cycle helmet can make injuries worse.
Well, quite. When the compulsory motorcycle helmet law passed back in 1973, there were unexpected consequences. A helmet will make a difference in some circumstances. In others they will be of little use or even counter productive. At even relatively low speeds, the brain can move inside the skull, leaving the wearer brain damaged. Frankly, I’d rather be dead. Whatever the arguments for and against, it should be a matter for the individual to decide, not the state. As for the matter of children, that is a decision for their parents, not the state.
Deputy Wimberly continues:
I do believe that this proposal is put forward by a well-intentioned lobby group.
But they are proposing a law that would affect half of islanders, effectively criminalising them on a scientific basis that is so weak.
Indeed.
Many politicians argued whether it was the States’ place to compel people to wear helmets.
It isn’t. Didn’t stop the bastards, though.
Does this mean Jersey Police will now be stopping anyone who looks to be under the age of 18 and not wearing a helmet when riding a bike?
You betcha.
A gross over-reaction to a personal tragedy that has indeed criminalised a large section of the population. Talk about the law of unintended consequences!
Last week, I witnessed a motorcycle accident – a motorcyclist, going too fast overtaking a vehicle, hit a car turning and fell off.
Thankfully the only damage he suffered was a broken leg; had he not been wearing a helmet however it would have been much worse (I was very impressed with the support the helmet provided, and how he was able to articulate detailed descriptions to allow passers-by to help while awaiting the ambulance).
In general, I agree with you Longrider, and have many libertarian tendencies. But things like that make me realise that maybe, just maybe, there is a place for strong external guidance.
And don’t give me the “he doesn’t help anyone but himself” garbage. If the chap in my afore-mentioned example hadn’t been wearing a helmet, I’d have been picking bits of skull out of my windscreen for the next week (even though I wasn’t involved in the accident, just one car back), and I’d have probably been a gibbering wreck with a bottle of whisky for some time to come. So, there is a place for helping others by JUST BEING SENSIBLE. And if, in some cases, that requires state coercion, then so be it.
There’s a world of difference between enforcing a safe behaviour on a public road (where people do not choose to be in your company) and in a private place (where they typically do make the choice). Remember that. Let’s draw a line sensibly.
I would always wear a helmet irrespective of the law, because it provides eye protection and keeps my head warm. Not because I think it will protect me if I come off – as I am well aware, in certain types of spill, it will. In others, it would cause neck injuries or merely leave me brain damaged and in those circumstances is no help whatsoever. Another perfectly valid concern is the restriction on peripheral vision – even helmets with a decent opening cause this problem. Some riders would prefer to manage without and that should be their choice. It is not and nor should it be the state’s concern.
Pure speculation. And, as someone who has had to pick up bits of brain (albeit from the railway) it doesn’t leave you a gibbering wreck for some time. We are remarkably able to adapt to the deaths of complete strangers.
Absolutely. Fuck all to do with the state, though. it’s called personal responsibility – something the state is determined to eradicate
Of course. That’s why we have the Highway Code – a combination of Road Traffic Law and common sense that is mutually agreed for our interaction, such as standardised road signs, recognised procedures for changing direction and dealing with junctions and roundabouts and all driving on the same side of the road. The wearing of seatbelts and helmets though doesn’t fall into this category – because the only person likely to suffer injury is the person involved. The only possible exception to this is the rear seatbelt – in which case, it is the driver and front seat passenger who should have the final say – just as I would refuse a pillion who wouldn’t wear a helmet. My bike, my rules. With the car, I insist that all passengers belt up. My car, my rules. It doesn’t matter what the law says, those rules would still apply.
The problem here is not helmets and it is not seat belts, it’s the creeper.