The Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, a Private Member’s Bill from Eric Martlew, MP for Carlisle, gets its second reading in Parliament on 23 April. The majority of Private Member’s Bills don’t get anywhere, there being plenty of other bits of Government-driven legislation to take up parliamentary time, but the PHYC Bill has attracted a fair bit of controversy and has perhaps an unusually high profile.

We’ve covered the Bill before (see linked stories) but to briefly recap, the Bill would make it illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to ride a bicycle on the road or in public recreational spaces without wearing a helmet. It would also make it a criminal offence for any adults responsible for a child to allow them to ride unhelmeted, and the way the Bill is worded would include not only parents but teachers and even bike shop owners.

Supporters of the Bill, which naturally includes its sponsors the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (or BHIT, which we really must try to stop pronouncing BeHit), say that compulsory helmet wearing will reduce the number of head injuries suffered by children falling off bikes and is therefore a good thing.

Opponents, however, point to a raft of statistics showing that the number of bicycle-related head injuries is tiny compared to those sustained by children in cars or just walking along and the number of actual deaths directly attributable to head injuries even smaller. They also cite evidence from other countries indicating that helmet compulsion causes cycle use to drop, and, they say, with the current concern over the state of the nation’s health, where’s the logic in introducing legislation that would put kids off riding bikes (both because their parents would have to spend more money to get them out and about and because such a law would cause cycling to be perceived as far more dangerous than it actually is)?

It can’t be a good sign for the supporters of the bill that major cycling groups like the CTC oppose it, as do the Government’s own advisors the National Cycling Strategy Board and the British Medical Association. Oh, and the Department of Transport. Not necessarily in principle, but on the grounds that it’d be impractical to enforce. None of these groups oppose helmet wearing, just compulsory helmet wearing. On the other hand, Saving Kids’ Lives is a pretty much guaranteed vote-winner assuming that no one reads past the headlines.

Helmet legislation is a polarising topic, and it’s not all that often that legislation that directly affects cyclists comes within spitting distance of the statute books. So exercise your democratic right and have your say – read the bill, read the arguments for and against (UK bike trade mag BikeBiz has compiled a whole bunch of helmet legislation stuff that makes absorbing reading and then fax your MP – it’s free!