After a 2.5 hour debate, Northern Ireland MLAs today voted for the Cyclists Protective Headgear Bill to move to the next stage of the legislative process.
Introduced by Pat Ramsey(SDLP) MLA, chair of the All-Party Group on Road Safety, the bill seeks to compel all those cycling in a “public space” in Northern Ireland to wear a protective helmet. A £50 penalty charge awaits anyone found to be cycling without one, or to be responsible for any children found to be cycling helmetless.
The vote was close with only two votes separating the Ayes and the Noes. The Members were all in favour of promoting road safety and the increased use of helmets by cyclists, but many felt that legislation was the wrong tool for the job. A number of problems with the draft bill were also raised and debated. In the end, however, the house decided that the bill was fit to move to the Committee stage, where it will be examined and debated in greater detail before potentially being passed into law.
The argument is emotive, but actual evidence that compulsory helmet use increases cyclist safety is hard to come by, and that overall road safety would be improved by such a law is a questionable position. Today’s debate was robust and (seemingly) provided with the best available data, but was still inconclusive. The Committee stage should seek out and consider even better, more recent data, and I trust that the bill will be made into law if and only if there is an overwhelming argument in favour.
Anything less would be a failure, if not a disaster, for cycling in Northern Ireland.
I think the whole thing is a massive waste of time and money.
I think the arguments on both sides are irrelevant.
For me, I wouldn’t go out on a bike without a helmet. Those who are daft enough to do so, only endanger themselves. Putting a law in place to protect people from their own stupidity just creates another virtually unenforcable law. The fact that the assembly spent 2.5 hours debating this, I’d love to see the FTE cost of that debate. Load of balls.
Austin is right that this is essentially a law to protect people from themselves, but so too is seatbelt law in cars (and helmet law in motorcycles. Presuming it is the law for motorcyclists to wear helmets).
I too would never go out on my bike without a helmet, but I’m unclear on the evidence. It seems to me to make sense that if I hit my head on the ground, it’s better to be wearing a helmet. But how often do cyclists hit their heads on the ground? I’ve heard other arguments which say that wearing a helmet makes both cyclists and car drivers take more risks around cyclists, but again I don’t know what the evidence is for that.
The other point that seems to arise is that requiring helmet use could reduce cycling uptake.
“The aim of the Bill is to require cyclists of all ages to wear protective headgear when cycling on any public roads or paths, or in parks.”
This seems a bit excessive. I wear a helmet commuting on roads but I’m less likely to on a dedicated cycle lane away from traffic or in a park. That’s my choice and if I land on my head I’ll take the consequences.
I don’t think it’ll be enforceable, when I was a kid I was forced to wear a helmet but it usually came off as soon as I was out of sight and hung over the handlebars until I had to go home again. I imagine if this becomes law then kids who don’t want to wear them will just put helmets on as soon as they see any police.
Those aren’t really valid comparisons, when you look at it.
The “seatbelt law” also protects other passengers from your stupidity, so it’s not just about personal freedom and choice. The same can be said for the public smoking ban, which is the other example that gets trotted out. However, in the case of motorcycle helmets, there was clear evidence that compulsory use would save lives (because of the greater speeds involved) and no detriment to either road safety or overall public health from any reduction in motorcycle usage that may have resulted from its introduction. This is not the case for cycle helmets. The evidence is unclear and open to interpretation, and that’s a poor basis for creating legislation.
Cycling groups fear is that compelling helmet use will discourage casual cycling. Forget the people who spend hundreds (or thousands) of pounds on a bike and take part in races and events – they’re aren’t going to be put off by having to buy and wear a helmet. It’s the other end of the scale that we need to look at; the low paid guy who scrimps together £80 for a “bicycle shaped object” to get to work on would face paying more than half of that again to buy a helmet; the kids cycling to school who now won’t because helmets are “uncool” (or something); the pensioner keeping active and nipping down to the shops for some milk, where it now isn’t worth getting kitted out in all the required safety gear. Reducing the numbers cycling at this grassroots level attacks general public health as well as reducing the “normality” of seeing bikes on the roads, and it is this normality that has been shown to be the real winner as far as cyclists’ road safety is concerned.
The CPH bill is safety theatre. It sounds good, but would have little (or even a negative) effect on public health and road safety.
Not really on topic I know – but since you mentioned motorbikes – a helmet almost certainly saved me from severe brain damage and/or death when I hit the side of a car at around 50 mph (it was the car driver’s fault by the way). Helmet was a write off but most of my brain was still intact….
Interesting reading:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html
Spend the money on education. Forcing cyclists to wear helmets isn’t the way to keep us safe on the roads.
When I bought a bike a few years ago, after many years without one, I considered whether I ought to buy a helmet, and decided against. Not because I am “daft” and reckless, but because I looked for evidence as to their safety and found papers such as this one:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2005.pdf
I’m one of the people John G describes above: I bought a “bicycle-shaped object” for occasional use and to save a bit on bus fares. I cycle mostly on the N9 route away from traffic, where the biggest threat to my safety is the odd unleashed dog. If the law passes, I’ll comply with it. But I might well comply by selling the bike, rather than buying a helmet.
And, from the top of the bus, no doubt I’ll still see some “safely” helmeted cyclists darting recklessly through traffic with their iPods blasting into their ears, pretending that red lights don’t apply to them.
Cycling isn’t dangerous, in the same way that walking and running aren’t dangerous. Throw a 1 ton car into the mix and that’s when everything starts getting dangerous.
Putting on a helmet doesn’t make you ride more responsibly, obey the traffic laws, be more aware and cautions around town.
A £500 for aggressive & dangerous driving when it come to cyclists would be more effective. Encouraging cyclists to report aggressive/dangerous drivers would be more appropriate and vice versa.
Placing an ill fitting helmet on a child’s head will not teach them where to ride on the road, how to look over their shoulder, listen for traffic, signal while riding with one hand. How to pull into the verge when they see something huge coming toward them. Only an adult with time to spare can do that. A child falling off a bike at 10mph – 99/100 – will get up, have a few scratches, dust themselves down and learn from it. I know this from experience.
If you’re cycling in a group of other cyclists then your chances of coming off increase very significantly. All bike accidents I’ve witnessed have involved other bikes. Some pretty bloody accidents. Late braking, cycling too close to the bike in front etc.
I think you should wear a helmet when you judge there’s a significant risk you might have an accident.
I think dangerous drivers & cyclists should be reported and prosecuted.
When the motorcycle helmet law was introduced in 1973, there was an enormous outcry, the arguments against compulsion were nearly word for word what is being written now about cycle helmets. I would disagree about cycling being dangerous unless there are cars nearby, I can honestly say the worst injuries I have sustained in 30 odd years of cycling involved no other vehicles.
If they worst does happen and a cyclist is involved in an accident with another cyclist or a car, they may leaving themselves open to accusations of endangering themselves by not wearing one. A helmet isn’t expensive, my own one was £20, not a huge sum by any standard.
Don’t think this in an unenforcable law either, there’s a lot of easy £50′s to be made out of this.
Speaking as someone who has cracked his head open – all I can say is that it was bloody painful! (literally – I lost loads of the stuff).
I’ve seen contradictory evidence regarding the benefits of helmets, however, I think this law (even though I’m not a citizen of Northern Ireland) is a sensible one based on my own observations and experiences.
You have a duty of care to yourself, and those around you and should take that responsibility (that’s already covered by existing health and safety law).
Nb – if you see an accident waiting to happen, you’re legally obliged to call it out.
So maybe they don’t need to legislate about Helmets?
@Bedhead No-one is arguing with anything you say (apart perhaps from the PSNI who said this law would be unenforcable). Helmets are a good idea – I too know this from personal experience – but is having a specific law that makes them compulsory necessary or beneficial?
It may not be necessary, but it is beneficial, maybe I’ve been riding motorcycles for too long and am missing the point, but it strikes me that not taking a basic safety precaution like wearing a helmet is plain daft, likewise stating that giving up cycling rather that wearing the helmet stikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face. I imagine this law will be pretty vigorously enforced, maybe not amongst young kids, but I can see cyclists being pulled for not wearing lids, it’s an easy way to demonstrate “pro-active” policing. Especailly somewhere like the towpath where there’s more likely to be casual cyclists out for a sunday trundle.
I know, I’m a cynical git.
I remember sometime back in the 80′s when nobody wore cycle helmets a colleague of my mum’s son being killed in a bike accident.
She came home and told me to start wearing a bike helmet as the family had been told that the kid would have survived if he’d been wearing one. Of course I never wore a helmet until I hit my late 20′s – now I always wear one.
So do helmets save lives? I’d say yes. How many is probably open to debate – but does the how many matter? Surely one is enough – particularly if it’s yours or your loved ones.
I also think making it law would make kids wear helmets. I have helmets for my kids but, I admit, rarely make them wear them. It’s just one more thing to have to argue with them about. Making it law would make me do it and, believe it or not, some kids are still afraid of the police. Telling them they’ll get put in jail certainly works with seatbelts and booster seats.
@sarah_ferg “That’s my choice and if I land on my head I’ll take the consequences. ”
Does that mean I won’t have to pick up the NHS bill for your brain damage or the PSNI wont need to go and round and tell your parents/lover/brother/sister “There’s been an accident”?
As for better education, improved training, more enforcement for car and bike drivers – do all these too. In fact – why not ring-fence the revenue and use it on education and training (whatever happened to the cycling proficiency scheme in schools?) or some grit on cycle paths in winter?
Risk mitigation is all about having a range of measures not just one.
The helmet is the last one you want to use but when you need it you’ll be glad it’s there!
@stuartm9999 That’s a very emotional argument that could be used to cover a lot of situations. If I was to stop doing anything has a risk of death / injury I wouldn’t get out much.
I mean, how many precautions should I take before you’d be happy for me to receive NHS care? If I was to break my leg, should I have been wearing body armour?
My argument is that I should be able judge the risks involved and make a decision based on that.
Do helmets save lives? Yes.
If the money spent on advertising and enforcing this new law was spent on alternative schemes (advertising (“Watch out for that cyclist”), adding in cycling lanes on busy roads etc), would more lives be saved? Probably yes.
As for “ring-fencing the revenue” – that’s based on the assumption that vast numbers of people will be caught and fined under the scheme. This is not going to be a moneymaker – even now I rarely see anyone cycling without a helmet, and the cost of catching them and collecting fines will outweigh any income, never mind the expensive advertising campaign that will be needed to communicate this.
In fact, given the miniscule budget for cycling-related expenses this year (£8,000, you’re having a laugh, etc), it’s possible that this law could eat up any cycle-lane repair money for the year. Now there’s a gloomy thought.
@sarah_ferg fair point – body armour might have stopped my elbow fracture last month when I tried cycling on ice (;-))
@shinyemptyhead hopefully the money will come from justice but you’re right, civil servants and politicians are likely to divert the entire 8k cycling budget to a single crap poster for this. In fact cost of debate and subsequent scrutiny is probably already twice this.