Jersey makes plastic hats compulsory for under-14s

[PaulB]

Do you know that the BBC campaigns for helmets so strongly that they won't let presenters record radio shows unhelmeted?

Where did you get that load of nonsense from? If you are complaining about biased statistics and conflict of interest then your (tongue in cheek) comment does you no credit.

[Steady rider]

Safety
5.4.51

We should normally observe the law, both in the UK and other countries, unless there is clear editorial justification for not doing so. This includes ensuring that presenters, actors and contributors who are driving use seatbelts, fit child car seats correctly, wear crash helmets and use the correct mobile phone equipment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline ... -behaviour

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=41173&start=60 more discussion

[mjr]

My (not tongue-in-cheek) comment was based on a report where someone was accompanying a scientist on a ride around London. I think the topic was the health benefits of cycling, based on that report with the headline that an hour's cycling means an hour's more life expectancy. The BBC reporter asked if helmets made a difference, then commented that he had to wear one during the ride because of BBC policy even though it was radio. I didn't find it on their website explicitly now though.

[Steady rider]

I understand that the Minister authorised the legislation on the 17 July and a judicial review has to be taken within 3 months. They voted for legislation in 2010. Can anyone clarify if a judicial review could still be lodged?

[pjclinch]

Safety
5.4.51

We should normally observe the law, both in the UK and other countries, unless there is clear editorial justification for not doing so. This includes ensuring that presenters, actors and contributors who are driving use seatbelts, fit child car seats correctly, wear crash helmets and use the correct mobile phone equipment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline ... -behaviour

This mentions the law, and of course riding a m/cycle in the UK on the roads requires a lid. The above doesn't make any requirement that I can see for a cycle helmet unless in a place where they are legally required.

Pete.

[Steady rider]

Yes you are correct Pete. This issue came up about a year ago, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... wear-crash

'The other day I had a stand-up row in the middle of Broad Street, Oxford, with a BBC crew who were filming me on my bike. They insisted it was BBC policy that anyone shown onscreen had to wear a helmet.

'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguideline ... -behaviour
5.4.50

When hazardous activities such as rock climbing, snowboarding or white water rafting are portrayed in factual content either before the watershed or on radio when children are particularly likely to be in our audience, or in online content likely to appeal to a significant proportion of children, we must give warnings about the dangers of imitation without expert supervision and ensure the necessary safety equipment is clearly visible. Where relevant and unless there is a clear editorial reason for not doing so, pre-watershed drama and entertainment programmes, or similar online content likely to appeal to a significant proportion of children, should normally show the correct safety procedures when depicting these kinds of activities.

Safety
5.4.51

We should normally observe the law, both in the UK and other countries, unless there is clear editorial justification for not doing so. This includes ensuring that presenters, actors and contributors who are driving use seatbelts, fit child car seats correctly, wear crash helmets and use the correct mobile phone equipment.

(See Section 18 The Law: 18.3.1)

5.4.52

We should also show the commonsense use of safety equipment wherever practical, unless there is clear editorial justification for not doing so. This includes using eye protection for DIY activities and protective headgear and clothing for sports and leisure activities, particularly those popular with children such as cycling, skateboarding and water sports.

---------------------------
reply from the BBC 8.8.2013 below
Reference CAS-2246664-VDGBC7


Thanks for contacting us regarding our programming.


We understand you feel programmes should present cyclists with and without helmets to demonstrate different safety preferences.


Our Editorial Guidelines explain that we should normally observe the law, both in the UK and other countries, unless there is clear editorial justification for not doing so. We should also show the commonsense use of safety equipment wherever practical, unless there is clear editorial justification for not doing so. This includes using protective headgear and clothing for sports and leisure activities, particularly those popular with children, such as cycling.


We work hard to ensure our staff operate under safe conditions. We appreciate your suggestions would therefore like to assure you that we’ve registered your feedback on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback that’s compiled daily and made available to staff across the BBC, including programme makers, channel controllers, and commissioning executives.


The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.


Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.


Kind Regards


Alastair O'Donnell

BBC Complaints

[hufty]

That editorial guideline does not apply in Scotland of course - see just about any episode of "DIY Le Donnie" on BBC Alba

[Steady rider]

Perhaps what the BBC has failed to do is make a programme looking in depth at the helmet issue and its implications.

The merits or otherwise of helmet use and legislation has been widely discussed for about 25 years.

One potential problem with the BBC making a programme is that they may reply on the DfT and TRL, who have both issued one sided reports on the topic. The Transport Select Committee considered cycling safety and could have taken a session to look in detail at the helmet issue but failed to do so. In the mean time Headway promotes a one sided view spread across the media.

[PaulB]

Perhaps what the BBC has failed to do is make a programme looking in depth at the helmet issue and its implications.

The merits or otherwise of helmet use and legislation has been widely discussed for about 25 years.

One potential problem with the BBC making a programme is that they may reply on the DfT and TRL, who have both issued one sided reports on the topic. The Transport Select Committee considered cycling safety and could have taken a session to look in detail at the helmet issue but failed to do so. In the mean time Headway promotes a one sided view spread across the media.

Why pick on the BBC? I haven't seen any other broadcaster look at the helmet question in any detail. Even cycling magazines review helmets on the way they look and feel instead of how effective they may be in a crash. The problem we have now is the rise in popularity of cycle sport since the UK started winning stuff. Helmets are a part of the scene along with wrap-around glasses, padded mitts and lycra. I suspect many youngsters like wearing helmets because they can be like Bradley Wiggins or Mark Cavendish. To some, helmets have become a fashion accessory to make them look like 'real cyclists' as opposed to riding with mudguards and one pannier! Today image is everything, hence the surge in carbon fibre machines that may be completely unsuitable for the riders who buy them.

[Steady rider]

In many ways you are correct. The BBC has millions in funding to make investigation type programmes.

[Mick F]

It was just on Radio 2 news that this law has been introduced.

They said it was the first place in the British isles to make cycle helmets compulsory.

I heard it too, but on Radio Four.

They said that failure to comply was subject to a £50 fine.

I wonder who the fine is levied too.
The child under 14? Somehow I doubt they could pay.
The parent/guardian? Somehow I doubt that they could be held responsible away from home. At 13, I could have been 50miles away from home on my bike.

I know the Channel Islands aren't that big, but if a child leaves home with a helmet on, then goes a few miles and chucks it in the bin, how can the parent be held responsible for the child not wearing it?

If a child (independently) breaks the law, who is at fault?

[bovlomov]

If a child (independently) breaks the law, who is at fault?

Then the parents are not fit persons to care for the child, and the child will be removed from them (to one of the island's famous children's homes).

[Mick F]

I was being provocative really.

Parents or guardians are always responsible for children under the age of criminal responsibility .......... but if a child is independent away from home, they are on their own and out of parental responsibility. The mere fact that they have gone isn't the responsibility of the parents, as they can't clap them in irons to the wall and cosset them 24/7. As I said, at 13 years old I could have been 50miles away from home on my bike.

If a child is away from home and breaks the law, so be it and you can't fine the parents for the child breaking the law.

[Steady rider]

The £50 fine may be applied to the parents but a warning process is in place, so that initially fines can be avoided.

If the child gives false details, then a £500 fine is possible, but most unlikely.

A child of 13 without a helmet and having an accident could be in a much weaker position for compensation than one of 14 and suffering the same injuries, age discrimination of a kind. If 2 kids of age 14 are cycling with one of age 13, all without one, the police would have to stop them all and question them, taking names and ages, how good to be a kid in Jersey.

In any event the law is imposed and the accident rate could be higher by wearing a helmet, e.g. Erke and Elvik 2007 examined research from Australia and New Zealand and 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."
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28 https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikas ... 7-nett.pdf

The likely outcomes from the law will be cycling is discouraged, accident rate per km increased and fines or warnings.
Jersey has failed its young people by this backward step.

[TonyR]

The likely outcomes from the law will be cycling is discouraged, accident rate per km increased and fines or warnings.
Jersey has failed its young people by this backward step.

I think they're pretty safe on those ones - helmet wearing in that age group in Jersey is about 80% and accidents are very very rare. So they are unlikely to be able to accumulate any meaningful stats and even if they did and helmets were 85% or 0% effective you would still not see a detectable change in injury rates. And with 80% wearing already there are not many to put off cycling.