Annette Brooke was third MP in a row to push for cycle helmet compulsion.
LibDem MP Annette Brooke is the latest MP to fail to get the UK Parliament to pass a bill forcing cyclists to wear helmets.
Previous private members' bills from MPs Peter Bone (Tory) and Eric Martlew (Labour) also failed to generate support from MPs.
The MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole presented her bill to Parliament in July but last week it failed to get a second reading.
In July she said the bill "aims to protect children from head injuries, and the devastating effects of brain injury, by making it compulsory for those under 14 to wear cycle helmets."
Children climbing trees, or travelling in cars, or walking on streets, or skateboarding, or riding kick-scooters, were not required to wear helmets in her bill, her proposed measure was just for cyclists.
Article continues belowAdvertisement
The Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill would have make it mandatory for children under 14 to wear cycle helmets when cycling on roads and in open spaces.
Brooke said: "The law will not criminalise those cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
"We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."
The MP has never introduced a private members' bill requiring measures to prevent the risk of cycling on roads, such as slowing down motorists.
"Brain injury lasts a lifetime. We owe it to children to protect them in the years before they are old enough to make their own minds up," said Ms Brookes.
"More children wearing helmets will mean a reduction in child deaths and serious brain injury. Through this Bill I hope we can make cycling even safer, and encourage children to get out on their bikes."
Forcing parents to make their children wear helmets reduces the demand for cycling, say anti helmet compulsion campaigners.
The MP's bill had the support of the BMA, brain injury charity Headway, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, Child Brain Injury Trust, road safety charity BRAKE, and the Child Accident Prevention Trust.
No cycling groups are in favour of cycle helmet compulsion. And Brookes did not have the support of key LibDem MPs. Julian Huppert, LibDem MP for Cambridge, and co-chair of the All Party Parliamentarty Cycling Group, said at the time of the bill's first reading:
"The Lib Dem transport team disagrees with her. I've tried to persuade her! Lib Dem (& coalition) policy is not to have compulsory helmets."
Add a new comment
You need to be logged in to post comments. If you do not have an account then please register.
Comments
1 comment
OK this Bill was for under 14's. But it's the thin end of the wedge, so let's widen the net (Pardon the mixed metaphor). Cycling organisations’ resistance is not some kind of stubborn libertarian stance. Although there are such important points of principle - like not ‘blaming’ the victim, not diverting attention from real safety improvements - there are big practicalities as well. Helmets are not that effective in real world situations, (casualty rates haven’t improved with helmet wearing). Their construction is not up to their supposed purpose. There’s risk compensation by cyclists and drivers – they pass you closer and faster if you’re in a helmet. Cycling risks get grossly exaggerated, putting people off cycling , whereas the more people cycle the safer it gets. www.cyclehelmets.org gives the details. Don’t fall for opposing propaganda - even claims that ‘my helmet saved my life’ can be unfounded; in any case there are casualties from lots of causes without calls for safety measures, let alone ineffective ones. It’s all part of an anti cycling culture, with cyclists as a social out-group. Otherwise why no clamouring for driving, walking and rugby helmets. And river-side walking life jackets. Many normal activities, like swimming and football, are riskier than cycling - check the casualty statistics. (As the ETA’s latest bulletin has done). Holland and Denmark’s real cycling cultures don’t have helmets – and they don't have high casualty rates either. Apparently Australian stats show no big difference between helmet wearing rates arriving in A&E and the overall cycling population (I don't think the corresponding UK data are available) Hopefully one day we’ll get some widespread top class utility cycling infrastructure; meanwhile learn to cycle better to avoid the spills and improve on the current 20 to 1 ratio of health benefits to risks. It’s dangerous not to cycle! Traders, who are pleased to get cash in the till through helmet sales, should perhaps take a broader perspective and realise that avoiding helmet promotion, let alone compulsion, will avoid depressing cycling, bike sales and ultimately money in the till. John Mallows, Policy Director, Cyclenation
John Mallows Nov 8th 2011 at 6:17PM
0 1