There’s a storm brewing… If you’ve been around the net for more than three and a half minutes you’ll probably have experienced at least one helmet-related forum or newsgroup skirmish. It’s an emotive subject, and it’s about to hit the mainstream. Member of Parliament for Carlisle, Eric Martlew MP, has introduced a Private Member’s Bill – the Protective Headgear For Young Cyclists Bill – that gets its second reading on 23 April. And it could have massive implications for cycling in this country.

It’s worth having a look at what the Bill actually says before deciding if you’re in favour of it or not. The headline clause is:

(1)
Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 16 years to ride a cycle —

(a) on a road, or
(b) in any park, garden or recreation ground to which the public have access without payment,

unless the child is wearing protective headgear of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.

A couple of things to note here. It only applies to children under the age of 16 (although David Coulthard, Patron of Bill sponsors BHIT, let slip at a presentation that BHIT intended to pursue legislation to cover all cyclists – beware wedges with thin ends…) and only on the road, so not in gardens and the like. But later on in the bill “road” is defined as “has the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988” and therefore encompasses various unmetalled rights of way including “green lanes”, byways and the like. And “any park, garden or recreation ground to which the public have access without payment” could be argued to cover MTB trails on Forestry Commission land.

Also important is the “cause or permit” bit. That’s limited to people with “parental responsibility” which would include parents and guardians. We initially thought that that included teachers and the like, but were advised by someone who knows more about these things than us that it didn’t. However, our legal correspondent has got back to us again and it appears that it does include teachers (the Bill refers to the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 if anyone wants to look it up). That’s going to be a bit of a stumbling block – it doesn’t seem terribly realistic to fine teachers when children set off to ride home without helmets. Additionally, “any person other than its owner who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it, if that person is above the age of 15 years” is covered, which at first reading would appear to include the owner of a bike shop that a bike was taken to for repair or indeed is bought from. But again, that’s something that a Proper Lawyer would have to sort out…

On the “for” side there is, naturally enough, the author of the Bill, Eric Martlew, and the sponsors, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (or “BHIT” – how are you meant to pronounce that?). On the “against” side is the Government’s own advisory body, the National Cycling Strategy Board, the British Medical Association and a range of cyclists’ groups including CTC.

We suggest that you invest a bit of time in reading up the arguments on both sides, but in a nutshell the case for helmet legislation is that kids fall off bikes and injure their heads, sometimes severely, and should therefore be made to wear helmets and supervising adults be made legally responsible for ensuring that they do. Under-16s have to wear helmets to ride horses, so why not bikes? It’s a pretty straightforward case, really.

Ranged against is evidence that helmet legislation just makes people less likely to ride bikes (not a good thing in an increasingly fat and unhealthy society) – not just because it’s one extra thing that parents will have to buy their children before they can ride, but also because if you have to wear a helmet to cycle, then cycling must be really dangerous, right? That’s the big one, really – shouldn’t we be encouraging kids on to bikes rather than putting obstacles in their way?

There’s also concern that the Bill as drafted appears to potentially criminalise all sorts of people – bike shop owners, teachers. And, say the opponents, if children’s head injuries are such a problem shouldn’t they wear helmets in cars and walking on pavements? There’s more about the opposition stance at bike trade news site BikeBiz

It’s worth noting that none of the “antis” are against helmet wearing. Indeed, all of them are keen to encourage helmet use. The bone of contention is the “compulsory” bit, but that tends to get forgotten in helmet arguments. There’re a lot of contradictory and misquoted statistics, facts and figures flying about. BHIT’s own site greets you with a warning about its material being misquoted by “…a number of websites attempting to demonstrate their opposition to helmet wearing…” which is in itself a misquote of the opposing stance. We’re not going to tell you what to think here – for the record, we’re pro-helmet but anti-compulsion. You’ve got both sides and a functioning brain, you can make your own mind up. And if you feel strongly about the issue then don’t forget that you can fax your MP for free…

And we know it’s been covered before, but don’t forget to have your say in the forum. MPs are going to be looking for ammunition for the debate so you never know, your contributions might get read out in Parliament…

Protective Headgear for Young Cyclist’s Bill:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/021/2004021.htm