The TRL report for Jersey - analysed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
At the risk of re-opening a spiral that's just been locked, I came across this today. I don't believe it was linked in that spiral - apologies if so. http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/saving-the-unicorn/

The key points - already 84% of under-14s wear helmets, so there's a tiny population exposed to the theoretical risk of not wearing one. The TRL report only cites one year of historical data, in which there was an unusually large spike of bike injuries. In that year only 2 under-14s were injured - and only then only slightly.

So the impact of the law on injuries will be the square root of diddly-squat. The article I've linked to summarises it like this:
So – and here is where we realise can ignore the discussion about efficacy – where is the problem that helmet compulsion is supposed to address? The report contains no evidence that it exists.

Remember, the legislation will only have an effect where:

  • the individual is under 14, and
  • is in the 16% not already using a helmet, and
  • is in the 50-100% of that 16% who will start using a helmet rather than not cycle, and
  • is in the 50% at most of that 50-100% of that 16% who – given the pre- and post-compulsion data cited in the report – will actually obey the law, and
  • is involved in an incident in which, without a helmet, they would sustain a head injury, and
  • the incident is of a nature where the helmet makes a substantive difference to the outcome
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
I had a look at the TRL document yesterday and it felt like nothing more than a shoe-in for the law to me but I had too many distractions to give it a thorough read. http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default...iew_compulsary_wearing_of_cycle_helmets_0.pdf

This shows that Green wanted the compulsion to apply to cyclists up to 18 years old, not children under 14. He'll be back for more. http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2014/P.030-2014.pdf
 
I don't know but I would imagine that due to the high density in most uk cities government is desperate to get people cycling rather than cars/public transport. They would not bring in anything that would jeopardise that as the infrastructure couldn't cope.

Jersey is different as I would imagine they couldn't care less if cycle numbers dropped. This is why I think nobody in the uk are watching this.
 

StuartG

slower but further
Location
SE London
@srw makes an excellent point about the law in Jersey - in that even if helmets are excellent protectors, the benefit of the legislation would be very small. It begs the question to those of us uneasy with the Jersey decision to think about what level of benefit to society is worth the loss of freedom to individuals. Where there is a significant benefit then I'm very comfortable with compulsion. Some of us would be very happy to see a serious enforced ban on mobile phone usage whilst driving (hands or handsfree) but not helmets.

Is this difference rational or a feedback from our prejudices? I mean I used to be a regular here challenging the efficacy of helmets. I like to think that is based on solid statistical evidence. But what of mobiles? We know they are of high distractive value but do they actually kill? It is a intuitive jump. Intuition can be a helpful but sometimes deceitful friend. The trouble is intuition is cheaper than solid cast iron research and experimentation.

All I am saying is that those of us who abhor compulsion on helmets should take care we apply the same principles on other road safety matters. Not that we should be worrying about helmets and mobiles so much if, instead, we concentrated on the low hanging fruit that will make a real difference in life and death. (Construction lorries in London comes to mind). Targeted action at the stuff that counts.

And yes I'm sorry you lost your thread @User13710. It was closed on my last post. I hope it didn't contribute to the spiral.
 
Last edited:

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
I don't think I'm imagining things when I say that I read in the first BBC article on the subject that the Jersey police have said that they are unlikely to impose fines. Judging by the news section of their website they've got more important things to worry about...
http://www.jersey.police.uk/news-appeals/2014/july/larceny-of-a-pedal-cycle/
One of the exceptions involves a child riding a "Bessie bike" on a cycle path - anyone know what that is?

I notice the child is committing the offence, so will they have to pay the fine? Does their bike get seized? If their parents are liable, what happens if a child sets off to school wearing the helmet but takes it off along the way? Most kids who might get stopped would probably be savvy enough to say they're 15 - who's going to bother checking?
Regulation 4 Draft Road Traffic (No. 60) (Jersey) R
egulations 201-
Page - 8

P.30/2014
(2) A child commits an offence and is liable to a fine of level 1 on the standard scale if, without reasonable excuse, the child contravenes a requirement imposed on the child by an Order under paragraph (1).
(3) A parent of a child commits an offence, and is liable to a fine of level 1 on the standard scale, if without reasonable excuse the parent causes or permits that child to contravene a requirement imposed on the child by an Order under paragraph (1).
It looks like the parent is liable if they permit the ''offence'' - otherwise the child is the criminal.

 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
Rather randomly the Cycle Show on ITV4 is promoting Jersey as a cycling destination! Watching it now but no mention of new law.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
What will happen if the head injury figures increase (given the low numbers of head injuries that is entirely possible).
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
Given that the age of criminal responsibility in Jersey is 10 then this law would only appear to apply to children between the ages of 10 and 14. That narrows the scope even more than the article in the OP points out...
Yes, I was wondering about that too. And, given that the police when consulted were posed a compromised question (''how would you enforce getting people to choose to wear helmets?'' they replied ''through education.'')* the police do not appear overly keen on criminalising non-Sikh** children.

Still, if the police aren't bothered about criminalising 10 to 14 year olds, we should be able to get a clearer idea of the disincentive to cycling on the island posed by compulsion.




*7. What mechanisms of enforcement and pe
nalties would you suggest to ensure
most cyclists choose to wear a helmet?
Educational methods of enforcement would be appropriate whereby
recommendations to attend on cycle safety courses would appear to be the most
appropriate. Cycle safety is paramount
here which is why we feel education is
key.
8.
Do you have any other comments regarding the compulsory cycle helmet
wearing?


It is realistic to say that any enforcement will need to sit amongst the many other
priorities that the police need to attend to. Accordingly, that level of availability
may vary in recognition of the very diverse demand placed on the SOJP. P44 of the TRL blather
** children required to wear a turban are exempt.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom