State right to protect children by ensuring they wear cycling helmets

THOSE who like to complain about the so-called “nanny state” have been given more opportunity to vent in recent weeks.

Added to the recent Government decision to introduce a ban on the smoking of cigarette products in cars where children are present is the idea to punish parents who allow their children (under the age of 13) to cycle without the protection provided to their heads by a helmet.

The objections to seemingly very reasonable ideas have been many and varied. Both ideas have attracted criticism on the basis that they are unenforceable. Are the gardaí, busy enough as things stand, going to stop cars where children are present to check if somebody inside is smoking? What if a cigarette or cigar isn’t present, because it has been chucked out of the window? Will a smoke detector be used to monitor the air quality in the vehicle? Who will receive the punishment and what will it be? Penalty points for the driver? But what if it is the front seat passenger, adult presumably, who is caught holding the offending item, the smoking gun so to speak? Will the driver be punished for allowing the passenger to smoke?

And when it comes to cycling helmets, what is a parent to do if a child is trusted to come home from school on his or her own but decides, for whatever reason, not to don the necessary item, or has simply forgotten it? Will the parent be fined for that? What level of fine will be imposed and who will police this? Will gardaí visit housing estates to see if the children cycling around the common green areas during the summer months are wearing appropriate headwear? Would they not be better off doing other things, such as chasing serious criminals, indeed getting on their own bikes to do so (given that there seems to be an absence of cars for the force to use)?

And whatever happened to the issue of individual choice, of people making decisions for themselves, of parents deciding what is best for their children? Surely any parent or adult would not smoke in a car with children present, for fear of the impact upon those children of second hand smoke? And surely they would not allow their children out on a bike without a helmet for protection?

Well, this is where it gets interesting. Many adults do smoke in cars where children are present, oblivious seemingly to the potentially damaging consequences caused to the others in the car or, worse, knowledgeable but uncaring. It is somewhat surprising that they do so when they have become accustomed to not smoking in workplaces, including the restaurants and bars where they socialise but other people work, where often there is far more air in which to dilute the smoke than is in the confined space of a car.

Their attitude may be that they own their cars, that it is their space and that they won’t be told by anyone what to do in it, not particularly by the State, especially when they pose no risk to any other drivers or pedestrians. They smoke in their own homes, so why not in their cars? And anyway, what proof is there that this second hand smoke thing really causing significant health risks?

The evidence is overwhelming. Therefore they are putting children, who are not old enough to make choices as to whether they want to be in a car or not, in the way of unnecessary health risks. Clearly, they cannot be trusted to do what is best for their children. Just as it is the law for everyone to wear seat belts in cars — and remember there were people who fought that compulsion, arguing that somehow it would put people in more danger in the case of an accident, that their ability to escape from a car would be constrained, as if that was more likely to be of significance — it should be the case that smoking is not allowed.

Sometimes the State has to act to make people do the right thing. It was the same with the introduction of the use of booster seats for under 11s (and under 5ft tall children) in cars: it may cause some unwanted expense but if helps the health and safety of the children then it is a price worth paying, no matter how many complaints are heard.

Some of the arguments against the compulsory use of cycling helmets are very interesting, however, mainly because they are coming from those who are the most ardent cycling advocates.

One of those arguments is that drivers apparently become more careless about cyclists if they see them wearing helmets, believing that they have greater protection than those without them and that they don’t have to worry as much about the consequences if they are knocked from their bikes. But if you were to take that logic to its conclusion it might suggest those cycling in high visibility clothing and vests are somehow more vulnerable than those who are wearing dark clothes and who do not have reflective lighting for darkness.

But allied to that is the argument that cycling helmets simply aren’t much use. Here I have a degree of sympathy with that point of view. I have taken to cycling again recently — after a 25-year gap — albeit for sporting rather than day-to-day transport reasons. Whizzing down the hills of the Dublin and Wicklow Mountains it has become very clear to me that my helmet would provide very limited protection in the event of an accident. I reckon I would need a motorbike style helmet, but who is going to wear that?

I have also become far more aware of the dangers of cycling than I was as a child, teenager and young adult. In retrospect I realise now how reckless I often was as a cyclist, particularly cycling home as a university student after consuming a rake of pints. Even breaking my wrist in one fall, caused by a pedestrian walking out from behind a lorry without looking to see if any traffic was coming (and it was entirely his fault), did not cause me to be more careful in my youth. It is a real sign of my advancing age that I have come to understand (and fear) the physical consequences of a fall more readily, and also that no matter how well prepared you might be that others can cause your accidents.

ADVOCATES of cycling believe that we need better facilities for cyclists (and I’ve been shocked by the poor condition of many cycling lanes in Dublin, where they exist) but the reality is that it will take years before these are funded. I can understand why cyclists would fear that the authorities might make the compulsion of helmets a cheap alternative to the provision of facilities, but it should not be an either/or in either direction. Children under the age of 13 may not often reach the speeds of adults on racing bikes, but serious damage can be caused by heads coming into contact with the edge of concrete pavements at low speeds, so why take the chance?

I remember some time ago the argument against the introduction of the compulsory use of helmets for hurlers at all grades. Despite the prevalence of eye injuries (including loss of eyes and sight), some choose to argue against the logic of their introduction. It would not be fair on players who were not used to wearing them, it would interfere with vision, it would be too hot, went some of the arguments. The introduction was enforced by the GAA and it was the right thing to do. The same with cycling helmets please.

* The Last Word with Matt Cooper is broadcast on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 4.30pm to 7pm.