New helmet law in Jersey

[up hill struggle]

my own personal view on this topic is that as a parent i have a duty of care in making sure that i protect my children from serious injury to the best of my ability through supervision of the things they do.

this includes making sure that if they are going to ride a bike that they wear a helmet for protection.

how much protection a helmet offers is questionable but still even if a helmet only offers minimal protection against serious head injury then they will have & be made to wear the helmet for the minimal protection that if offers, until they reach the age when they can make an informed decision about the pros & cons of helmets & decide at that time if they want to wear a helmet or not.

Until that day comes it is my responsibility to make them wear one, should they be compulsory for all?

That's not my decision but if they offer even minimal protection for your head then to me its better to wear one & have some protection than not wear one & have no protection.

If i was going to hit my head after falling off then i would rather wear one & look like a nob for a small period of the day than spend the rest of my life dribbling down chin & staring into space & family wishing i had worn one.

 

[Mugshot]

how much protection a helmet offers is questionable but still even if a helmet only offers minimal protection against serious head injury then they will have & be made to wear the helmet for the minimal protection that if offers, until they reach the age when they can make an informed decision about the pros & cons of helmets & decide at that time if they want to wear a helmet or not.

Like religion.

 

[Origamist]

[Transport Minister] Deputy Lewis said: "It is a significant concern to me that our serious road injury rate is considerably higher than the UK rate.

Despite there being a 40mph speed limit on Jersey's roads, they clearly have a road problem. Child enhattification does nothing to address this problem. Indeed, it diverts attention, and policing enforcement, away from the problem. Deal with the causes of the danger, don't restrict the freedom of the victims.

Jersey's road casualty figures are bucking the trend of the rest of the UK in that they are not significantly improving. This is particularly the case for cyclist and pedestrian casualties. The former are 42% higher than the UK. It is unfortunate that the Jersey authorities are not addressing the source of the problem: bad drivers.

 

[up hill struggle]

You extend this philosophy of any little helps to when they are walking?

no, as much as i would like i cannot rap my kids up in cotton wool i think that takes things a little to far.

i have never seen a car mounting the footpath & knocking people down although i am aware this does happen, i have seen however seen people falling off bikes & injuring themselves.

if i take the girls to the swimming baths they use appropriate safety equipment until they can stand with head above water or learn to swim.

They go on there bike they wear helmets. It makes sense to me to want to protect my children but safety measures that are put in place have to be appropriate, i don't make them wear motorcycle helmets when they are in the car incase were involved in an accident but they do use seatbelts & child/booster seats. Safety measures have to be appropriate for the circumstances there is an increased risk of a child falling of a bike & hurting themselves as opposed to walking down the road tripping & ending up with a serious injury.

 

[mcshroom]

Are you sure about that?

In the UK, child cycling accidents account for only 7.1% of all child head injury admissions, and 2.4% of all child hospital admissions. As half of all children have bicycles, this puts risk when cycling into perspective. Cycling accidents are hardly more likely to result in head injury than the generality of child accidents. Even in collisions with vehicles, children suffer over 4 times as many head injuries as pedestrians than when cycling (Franklin and Chapman, 2005).

http://cyclehelmets.org/1082.html

 

[up hill struggle]

not being funny, just not sure what the commonly held beliefs are.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

...if they offer even minimal protection for your head then to me its better to wear one & have some protection than not wear one & have no protection.

That's an argument for wearing one permanently.

GC

 

[Ganymede]

[Transport Minister] Deputy Lewis said: "It is a significant concern to me that our serious road injury rate is considerably higher than the UK rate.

Despite there being a 40mph speed limit on Jersey's roads, they clearly have a road problem. Child enhattification does nothing to address this problem. Indeed, it diverts attention, and policing enforcement, away from the problem. Deal with the causes of the danger, don't restrict the freedom of the victims.

Jersey's road casualty figures are bucking the trend of the rest of the UK in that they are not significantly improving. This is particularly the case for cyclist and pedestrian casualties. The former are 42% higher than the UK. It is unfortunate that the Jersey authorities are not addressing the source of the problem: bad drivers.

I remember touring to Jersey with a play - we hired bikes for the day and set out for a trip to one of the remoter beaches. We also went on the obligatory trip to the zoo, inland. My memory of the inland roads there was that they were narrow, often lined with walls or high banks, and full of vankpanzers being driven by those most community-minded of people, sun-seeking tax-avoiders. Brrrr.

 

[up hill struggle]

That's an argument for wearing one permanently.

GC

safety measures should be put in place that are appropriate for the situation, but please feel free to wear yours 24 hours a day if you feel that the above is a good reason to do so, personally i will just stick to making the kids wear it when there riding there bikes as its a sensible safety measure put in place for the situation.

q

That your child is more at risk of acquiring a head injury cycling than walking or travelling by car.

please, if your going to pick holes in what i say (& i don't mind in the slightest by the way) at least do it properly. I never mentioned anything about being more of risk of acquiring a head injury, i said more at risk of injury by falling off their bike than tripping walking.

 

[mcshroom]

But why do you think that helmets are more appropriate for cycling than walking? Despite the social conditioning that cycling is supposedly a risky activity, the risks are very similar.

 

[Donger]

But why do you think that helmets are more appropriate for cycling than walking? .

Nobody I know ever walks downhill at 45mph - except perhaps during the annual cheese rolling on Coopers Hill.

 

[mcshroom]

Nobody I know ever walks downhill at 45mph - except perhaps during the annual cheese rolling on Coopers Hill.

Indeed pedestrians actually tend to stay within the design envelope of a cycle helmet.

You do know what the EN1078 standards actually cover I assume and don't just treat it as a magic hat.

 

[mcshroom]

Discussing the benefits or otherwise of children wearing helmets (and being compelled to do so by others, be it parents or governments) seems to be pretty much what this thread is covering.

 

[Big Nick]

It would make a real difference to me and to my cycling though.

How exactly??

 

[ianrauk]

Who are these Anti-Helmet brigade that people keep mentioning? S'funny as I've never seen any on this forum. Plenty of anti-compulsionists though.