BLOG rss
15/12/2010 // INFO 10 Comments

Helmet law process starts in Northern Ireland



One of the age-old debates in leisure cycling is whether cyclists should be made to wear helmets to improve their safety/protection against possible head injuries from an accident.

There are countless peer review scientific studies that support the notion that it does provide protection as well studies that do not, while some studies suggest that safety may have been compromised by wearing a helmet.

Wearing a helmet in the UK is still very much left to individual choice, but it could become compulsory in Northern Ireland in the near future if Pat Ramsey, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in the province, has his way.

Yesterday (December 13) saw the publication of a private members parliamentary bill (Cyclists (Protective Headgear) Bill 9/10) in the Northern Ireland Assembly that will require the wearing of a helmet for adults of all ages while cycling on a road or a public place in Northern Ireland.

Under the proposals of the bill, those caught riding without a helmet will face a fixed penalty charge of £50. However, first-time offenders can be excused if they produce a suitable helmet and a purchase receipt within seven days at a police station along with their penalty notice. An appeals process will also be available where fixed penalty notices can be challenged.

Interestingly, if the legislation is passed, the helmet law will not come into force until three years from the year it is passed. In that period, there would be a public campaign to raise awareness of wearing a helmet when cycling.

The helmet bill is at the first stage of the parliamentary process and will still require further parliamentary scrutiny and the support of all MLAs for it to pass and become law. As it is a private members bill, the vote on the law will be not based on political party lines.

UK cyclist organisation CTC has said it will oppose the bill and campaign in Northern Ireland against it.

The CTC believes that wearing a helmet is a personal choice and is opposed to making it compulsory. It argues that compulsion laws in other countries have reduced the number of people who cycle and a knock-on reduction in safety for those that remain.

Pat Ramsey’s bill is supported by brain injury charity Headway.

10 comments [leave one]
John December 15, 2010 at 10:45 am

This law has to be passed. Helmet is really necessary for everyone who cycle on road. Accidents can take place any time. So, it is good to take precaution beforehand.


  • Amoeba December 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Helmets are designed to protect wearers from the injuries from falling over. Why aren’t pedestrians required to wear them? Helmets aren’t designed to protect from vehicle impact and they don’t.

    A study in the BMJ concluded that the benefit to risk ratio of cycling was 20:1. It is far more dangerous to NOT cycle than to cycle.

    Promoting cycle helmets promote the idea that cycling is dangerous. And that discourages people from cycling and that causes more harm because those people don’t get enough exercise.

    Helmets aren’t the answer. Protecting cyclists from motor vehicles IS the answer.



  • Amoeba December 16, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    This idiotic law won’t help pedestrians. In-fact since most pedestrians are killed or injured by motor-vehicles and forcing helmets on cyclists WILL discourage cycling, there will be fewer cyclists and MORE cars. And that means more pedestrian casualties.

    More cycling means fewer pedestrian casualties.

    How many people wear helmets in the Netherlands? Not many. Cycling in the Netherlands is nothing to do with helmet wearing.


    Amoeba December 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Oops slight repetition there. That’s what happens when Firefox crashes three times during a post.

    For rational thought, facts and figures about cycling, helmets, cyclist safety and boosting cyclist numbers see:
    David Hembrow A view from the cyclepath


  • brian February 1, 2011 at 10:27 am

    A far better way to reduce cyclist casualties would be to tackle the poor standard of driving which prevails in Northern Ireland. I speak as a resident. Most cyclists who end up in hospital are put there by dangerous drivers. Bear in mind that helmets are not designed to protect in high speed accidents with cars. If the police are incapable of enforcing the existing rules of the road, what is the point of bringing in more rules, especially one so pointless as this?


  • Pingback: Tweets that mention GoingGoingBike - Blog -- Topsy.com

  • Kim December 15, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    It failed to make cycling safer in Australia, it fail in New Zealand, why would Northern Ireland be any different?


  • Adham December 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Kim, what evidence is there to suggest that compulsory cycle helmet laws in Australia and NZ have failed to make cycling safer? I’d be interested in reviewing such a study because to me such an assertion does not make any sense. Being a keen mtbiker and city cyclist myself and having had a loved one severly impacted by a serious brain injury from a cycling accident without a helmet, I always wear a helmet when riding and cannot see how riding without a helmet is considered as safe. I am from NZ and can remember when the compulsory helmet law was bought in (c.1998) – I remember thinking that it was a real hassle, but in reality you adjust pretty quikly and now no-one has an issue with wearing a helmet. I don’t now anyone that has been put off riding a bike because of the helmet law and would be interested in any studies that have been done on this.


    • Amoeba December 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm

      There’s some information here:



      The problem is that cycle helmets are not capable of achieving what they are not designed to do and helmets aren’t designed to protect cyclists from vehicle collision. Plus the Netherlands shows emphatically that helmets aren’t the answer.

      The science is equivocal. It certainly isn’t sufficient to justify helmet legislation.

      Could you please cite an example where a vaccination programme was introduced where the likely efficacy was as low as 50%?

      Now add compulsion to the mix.


    • Amoeba December 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm

      Looks like the original research may have been flawed.


      Two researchers at Sydney University claim that Australia’s compulsory bicycle helmet law, introduced nearly two decades ago, do not work and have called on a trial to be conducted to help try and predict what would happen if the law were repealed.



  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Grab the GGB Weekly Newsletter

and we will send you our second hand bike buying guide.

Search Blogs


Need some jargon translated? Consult the Bikepedia.







[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Going Going Bike, Going Going Bike.
is a comment made by Tweets that mention Man attempts to cycle Delhi to Mumbai in 30 hours - Going Going Bike -- Topsy.com in the blog post called

Is this some sort of publicity stunt for the new Team Leopard? ;o)
is a comment made by James - Going Going Bike in the blog post called

Great...we love the responsiveness and look forward to seeing the Brit version.
is a comment made by James - Going Going Bike in the blog post called

Simon - that is a really good point. I don't think the cost of a bicycle is the
is a comment made by James - Going Going Bike in the blog post called


Freecross – the full body ride

Man attempts to cycle Delhi to Mumbai in 30 hours

Pedal while you work

Orange Monkey suffer stolen bikes

Cycling schedule for Olympic Games released

Wales could bid for Tour de France Grand Départ

Additional ride announced for End 2 End event

Man uses bike to fend off Leopard

Review of Cervo Rosso National Pride Jersey

Promoting pedalling – cycling conference announced