Jersey makes plastic hats compulsory for under-14s

[coshgirl]

After years of talking about it, the UK's favourite tax haven Jersey has finally passed a law mandating cycle helmets for under-14s on bikes. In other news, 1 in 3 kids in Jersey are now overweight.

[Steady rider]

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonli ... ?ID=511986

One comment suggests a legal challenge, can the CTC set up a specific bank account for donation to a Jersey test case?

[MartinC]

Contrary to the common perception Jersey isn't part of the UK (or the EU). Also, in my view, it isn't a very democratic or open society so I although I'm not in favour of MHL anywhere I wouldn't really want the CTC to waste it's resources challenging it in this remote outpost of the 1950's. Those in Jersey would be better doing it for themselves, if they can be bothered.

[Steady rider]

Legal System
The legislation passed by the States of Jersey not only draws on English and French legislation but also laws adopted in Commonwealth countries. Jersey’s Royal Court has the same status as a Crown Court in the United Kingdom for criminal matters, and as the High Court for civil matters. It also exercises an administrative jurisdiction similar to that in the Divisional Court and receives statutory appeals against decisions of Ministers. It exercises a supervisory and an appellate jurisdiction over the Island’s lower criminal and civil courts. Appeals from the Royal Court of Jersey go to the Jersey Court of Appeal and after that, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Legal matters in Jersey may be decided by the UK's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If possible a legal challenge should proceed but it takes a real effort without certainty of outcome and requires some spending. The CTC could set up a bank account and seek donations and if funds came in a challenge may be possible.

[Bicycler]

Does the CTC cover Jersey or is it just the UK?

[Steady rider]

Jersey is part of Great Britain and the CTC seems to cover them.

http://www.jerseycourts.je/library/the- ... of-jersey/

History
The Channel Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy when William the Conqueror became King in 1066. Since then they have been subject to the English Crown as successor to the Dukes of Normandy. Jersey’s link with the UK and the Commonwealth is through the Sovereign and the Channel Islands have never been conquered by, or ceded territories to the UK, nor have they ever been colonies or dominions. They are part of the British Isles.

[MartinC]

Jersey is part of Great Britain and the CTC seems to cover them.

http://www.jerseycourts.je/library/the- ... of-jersey/

History
The Channel Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy when William the Conqueror became King in 1066. Since then they have been subject to the English Crown as successor to the Dukes of Normandy. Jersey’s link with the UK and the Commonwealth is through the Sovereign and the Channel Islands have never been conquered by, or ceded territories to the UK, nor have they ever been colonies or dominions. They are part of the British Isles.

As far as I know the Britsh Isles isn't a political entity but a geographical one. Jersey isn't part of the UK. As you quite rightly point out the Channel Islands have never ceded any territory to the UK. The head of state is the Queen and because of that some institutions are linked. In my view Jersey is essentially a freeloader it chooses when it wants to be regarded as part of UK (i.e. when there are benefits like Southampton hospital) and when it doesn't want to (i.e when there are taxes or costs). If, as a Britsih Citizen, you try and and go to Jersey to live there they'll very quickly tell you that it's not in the UK and you can't.

The most effective way to challenge the Jersey MHL would be to find the right place to make a donation.

[Steady rider]

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)

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, thereby not allowing time for a full assessment or allowing a reasonable time for any issues with the report to be properly examined. TRL for example did not mention the BMJ report or the Erke and Elvik report listed below.
Compulsory Wearing of Cycle Helmets - TRL Report - 14 July 2014 - Scrutiny Reports (1,469 KB)

Research findings have shown serious concerns from enforced helmet legislation.
Examples from Australia, New Zealand and Canada are provided below.

1
Robinson 1996 analysed children's accident data from Australia to investigate the effects of helmet legislation.

Details from New South Wales, reported the number of injuries to children compared to the level of cycling activity, to provide estimates of the ‘equivalent
number of injuries for pre law numbers of cyclists’, Table 2 in the report. The
equivalent number of injuries for pre-law number of cyclists increased from 1310
(384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in
1993.

For Victoria, using VISS data showed a 16% relative increase compared with the level of cycling activity. The data behind this report was based on substantial surveys and hospital admissions and treatments.

Refer Table 2 and Table 5
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accident Analysis Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

2
Clarke 2012 reported;
The NZ Ministry of Transport stated ‘The travel surveys show that from 1989/90 to 2005/08, the average time spent cycling per week decreased from 28 minutes to 8 minutes among those aged 5–12 years and from 52 minutes to 12 minutes among those aged 13–17 years.’ Averaging data for the two age groups implies a 75% reduction for children aged 5-17 from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week.
In addition, concerns were expressed about the safety outcome ‘Of particular concern are children and adolescents who have experienced the greatest increase in the risk of cycling injuries despite a substantial decline in the amount of cycling over the past two decades’.
Tin Tin et al also reported ‘In New Zealand, the overall travel mode share for cycling declined steadily from 4% in 1989 to 1% in 2006’.6
Refer; http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/655 ‘Discussion’ section and Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349 http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/

3
Erke and Elvik stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent." This is the only report that provides an estimate for the increased risk per cycling-km.

Refer; Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/norway.pdf

4
Alberta, Canada
Details published via Cyclehelmets.org state;

Effect on casualties
In the three years prior to the law, % head injuries were relatively constant at just above 5%. In the six months following the law, % head injuries increased to above 10% for children and just under 10% for all age groups. (BHRF, 1055) (based on data from 9 health regions)
The number of children treated in emergency rooms for non-head injuries was an average of 1,762 per year in 2003-6 compared with 1,676 in 1999-2002, despite there having been a fall of 56% in children cycling over the period. For teenagers the average number of injuries rose from 870 to 1,101 per year while the amount of cycling went down by 27%. (BHRF, 1250; Karkhaneh, 2011).
Refer http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1032.html accessed 21 May 2014

5
A recent evaluation of helmet laws in Canada, published in the BMJ, reported in May 2013 that the; ‘Benefit of cycle helmet laws to reduce head injuries still uncertain’ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 213148.htm

If legislation is enacted then it will foster a degree of discrimination, for example a child of 14 years and 1 day, riding without a helmet may gain full compensation in an accident case whereas a child of 13 years and 11 months may lose an appreciable amount of compensation, even if the use of a helmet had no or little effect on the injuries sustained.

Human Rights issues relate to forcing children to wear helmets that may have a higher accident rate and providing legislation that will result in discrimination in accident compensation cases.

[Bicycler]

Jersey is part of Great Britain and the CTC seems to cover them.

http://www.jerseycourts.je/library/the- ... of-jersey/

History
The Channel Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy when William the Conqueror became King in 1066. Since then they have been subject to the English Crown as successor to the Dukes of Normandy. Jersey’s link with the UK and the Commonwealth is through the Sovereign and the Channel Islands have never been conquered by, or ceded territories to the UK, nor have they ever been colonies or dominions. They are part of the British Isles.

The terminology needs a bit of clarification because things you might assume to be the synonyms are actually not.
As martin says

As far as I know the Britsh Isles isn't a political entity but a geographical one.

Yes. It refers to Great Britain, Ireland and the many surrounding islands. Interestingly the Channel Islands are generally included because of their close ties with the UK rather than being physically part of the same island group. It's not an entirely popular term with many Irish people because (as you demonstrated) it is often taken to imply that all of the isles belong to the UK.

Correctly used, Great Britain is another geographical term which refers to the largest of the British isles (ie. England, Scotland and Wales).

The UK's full name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is a political entity.

Unfortunately 'Great Britain' is commonly used to refer to the UK (egs. "Team GB", "British" meaning a citizen of the UK, car GB plates) and this can create confusion but neither the UK nor GB include all of the British Isles.

Jersey is not a part of the UK or Great Britain but is a Crown Dependency.

I was (and am still) interested in whether the CTC covers Jersey.

[Steady rider]

If CTC members with young families are visiting Jersey or live there then it could affect their cycling by imposing a helmet requirement. CTC runs tours on occasion to Jersey and potentially it could have an impact on who joins a tour. Legal matters in Jersey may be decided by the UK's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and if a legal requirement is approved without challenge it may have some bearing on the rest of the UK, if only in that part of the British Isles has a helmet law for children.
https://www.headway.org.uk/jersey-intro ... t-law.aspx

an example for the rest of the UK to follow

Mr Green and TRL both provided misleading information and gained support for legislation.

[MartinC]

..................Human Rights issues................

Ah, interesting juxtaposition - Human Rights issues and Jersey. I don't think legislation in Jersey is constrained or informed by Human Rights issues in the same way as the rest of Europe in the 21st century.

I've said above that I'm against MHL in principle but I think CTC would be wasting it's time challenging this. You've already pointed out the shortcomings in the process that got them here - the process of challenge won't be any different.

[MartinC]

...................may be decided by the UK's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ...................

I think it would take an issue of immense significance (re-introduction of the death penalty?) before the Privy Council got involved.

[honesty]

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

[Steady rider]

http://www.jcpc.uk/decided-cases/ it seem that many cases go to the Privy Council.

There is possibly a conflict of interest issue in that politicians need to balance all the evidence in deciding what may be best. Mr Green is Chairman of Headway a group with a political agenda who have published misleading material.

[[XAP]Bob]

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