Jersey makes plastic hats compulsory for under-14s

[Bicycler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

Very good. Though if he was going to mention the rarely referred to "commonwealth realm" (ie. those with the queen as monarch) he should have mentioned that this differs from membership of the "commonwealth of nations" (which will be referred to much more frequently over the coming weeks)

[[XAP]Bob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

Very good. Though if he was going to mention the rarely referred to "commonwealth realm" (ie. those with the queen as monarch) he should have mentioned that this differs from membership of the "commonwealth of nations" (which will be referred to much more frequently over the coming weeks)

Yes, but space on that Venn diagram was getting tight as it was...

[Bicycler]

Agreed.

Back on topic. Has any research been done on the effect of child helmet laws? What are cycling levels like on the island?

[[XAP]Bob]

Agreed.

Back on topic. Has any research been done on the effect of child helmet laws? What are cycling levels like on the island?

Whatever they were they'll be pitiful now.

[MartinC]

..................it seem that many cases go to the Privy Council.................

Yes, but which court case are you expecting to go through to the Privy Council? Interfering with the legislature or executive is a totally different issue to being the highest court of appeal in the judicial process.

[Steady rider]

see page 1

I think the basic facts to consider are that legislation was proposed by Deputy Green who made a number of misleading claims and gained support in 2010. Four years later the misleading claims were reported, http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/pages/search ... e%20helmet
Cycle Helmets - C. Clarke - Submission - 7 April 2014 - Scrutiny Submissions (26 KB) etc

The approval for legislation came from details that included misleading information, similarly with recent events.
The Privy Council could consider if the details provided were sound and if Human Rights aspects has been considered sufficiently and if legislation should be supported. They have the power to override laws passed in Jersey. If they were not convinced the law was in the public interest or a lack of proper consideration had been given or misleading statements had been involved, they could say that legislation had not been justified. Legal processes would have to see if this was possible.

[MartinC]

Steady, they could I suppose but, realistically, it's extremely unlikely. Routinely they will be involved in legal case that go through all the levels in the judiciary and then end up there as the highest level. Interfering in legislation in extremely uncommon and is extremely unlikely in something that's seen as a trivial internal matter. The legislation went through what passes for the normal democratic, constitutional process in Jersey (and politicians misleading people is part of the normal process anywhere) so there aren't really any grounds for them to want to challenge it.

[Steady rider]

The privy Council is one option to consider when trying to oppose legislation. There are reasonable grounds to bring a case but costs and other issues have to be considered. A report commissioned from TRL also made misleading claims and was published on the 14 July and used to support introducing legislation on the 18 July.

Allowing a reasonable time for opponents of legislation to examine the TRL and respond should have occurred. The Privy Council may say no the legislation is not justified due to the way it was processed and reject the legislation. It may ask Jersey to reconsider the issue and take account of all available evidence or it may hear evidence that raises fundamental concerns about imposing cycle helmet legislation.

If the Privy Council had concerns about imposing legislation or even about the safety benefits of helmets then cyclists involved in accidents may gain full compensation whereas now some reductions may be made for not wearing a helmet.

If the Privy Council had concerns about imposing legislation this would stop the Jersey law from proceeding and have implications for any suggested UK law.

For people opposed to helmet legislation and wanting full compensation for cyclists then the Privy Council option may be helpful. What other options are there?

[Cunobelin]

It's interesting to note that Deputy Green is the chairman of Headway...

That explains the lies, misleading claims and dubious statistics then.

[Steady rider]

http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/news/r ... 7#comments
More details and comments.

[TonyR]

I think the bigger issue for us is challenging TRL. Its very clear that Richard Cuerden, the reports author and the Technical Director for Vehicle Safety is an avid "don't confuse me with the evidence" plastic hat aficionado. His comment that

“There is no doubt that cycle helmets are effective in a crash, although some anti-helmet advocates still argue the opposite.

says it all with the very worrying additional comment

TRL says its report for Jersey "raises important questions for the rest of the UK – How can cycle helmet wearing rates be increased to help reduce head and brain injuries suffered across all regions of the British Isles? Should the Jersey compulsory cycle helmet wearing legislation be copied elsewhere?"

This is why TRL needs to be challenged about their lack of objectivity - they are after spreading helmet compulsion to the rest of the UK.

[TonyR]

I think the basic facts to consider are that legislation was proposed by Deputy Green who made a number of misleading claims and gained support in 2010.

What you also need to be aware of is that Deputy Andrew Green's son Christopher was knocked off his bike 26 years ago without a helmet and suffered a serious head injury. As a result he wants to now force all parents to do what he did not do himself.

[MartinC]

...............For people opposed to helmet legislation and wanting full compensation for cyclists then the Privy Council option may be helpful. What other options are there?

I'm opposed to helmet legislation. If Jersey people are campaigning against it the I'd give them my moral support and any material support I could but I'm not aware that they are. Trying to lead a campaign against it in other legislations is a bit presumptious and might even be counter productive. Jersey isn't part of the UK nor the EU so I've got no legitimate, democratic interest in interfering in their affairs.

I appreciate that the notion of the Crown in Parliament is an insidious perversion of democracy but notwithstanding that the Privy Council is there to advise the Crown (who is the head of state in Jersey and other places) so their remit is presumably just to flag up if the Jersey legislature is exceeding or abusing it's constitutional powers (whatever they are) and not to meddle in the content of any legislation. I'd also imagine that the States of Jersey is perfectly entitled to pass a MHL however much I or the rest of the world disapproves of it. Try it the other way round - do you think that the Privy Council have a remit to insist that the UK Parliament pass a MHL and what would you want to do if they did?

[stewartpratt]

This is why TRL needs to be challenged about their lack of objectivity

Et voilà.

[Steady rider]

The process in Jersey was headed by Mr Green, Chairman of the UK charity Headway and supported by TRL, both providing misleading information. It is used to promote helmet legislation in the UK, as could be expected by Mr Green.
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/story/ ... continues/

To stand back and say Jersey is separate and we have will leave it to make its own decisions is a poor response in trying to oppose legislation.