Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

Forums › Health and fitness › Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 22

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1978549 16-Mar-2018 11:43

A good move would be to replace all the grass verges in the main thoroughfare roads with paving and make these controlled shared pathways. That would get rid of messy lawns, make it safer for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians, improve commuter flows and improve the health of the masses.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1978563 16-Mar-2018 12:02

tdgeek:

A sensible outcome. Pedestrian traffic on a footpath is pretty low outside of the CBD, its a wasted resource. In any given stretch the cycle will be on there a smaller amount of time as well.

The trouble with footpaths or cycle lanes on shared footpaths is that they're basically terrible for cycling on. Very bumpy and not very straight. Lots of obstructions - park benches, rubbish bins etc. Unpredictable, slow moving pedestrians, vehicle crossings etc. That's why hardly any commuter cyclists use them and prefer to take their chances with the buses and trucks on the road.

But they're fine for folks going for a weekend ride along the waterfront with their kids.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978569 16-Mar-2018 12:08

If you are a serious rider, then yes, I'd agree footpath isn't practical. My FIL is an AVID cyclist. He has put 10s of thousands of KM's into his bike(s) and has ridden across lots of asian countries etc etc. He would be doing 50-150KM each day now that he is semi retired, and he doesn't ride the footpaths. He has had some terribly close calls though.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1978586 16-Mar-2018 12:46

I used to commute daily about 30 minutes each way by bike. I used a shared path cycleway. It crossed multiple side roads, where I had to give way to road traffic, which was a PITA. But I still preferred to to the main road (SH6).

Not a MAMMIL and never will be.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1978607 16-Mar-2018 13:11

Wow - 11 pages of responses in such a short time.

On such an important issue too - so important that other countries - many of them arguably far more "nanny state" than NZ - have looked at the possibility of introducing compulsory helmet laws for everyone - and rejected them, those against sometimes using the impact of NZ laws as an argument.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978611 16-Mar-2018 13:21

Fred99:

Wow - 11 pages of responses in such a short time.

On such an important issue too - so important that other countries - many of them arguably far more "nanny state" than NZ - have looked at the possibility of introducing compulsory helmet laws for everyone - and rejected them, those against sometimes using the impact of NZ laws as an argument.

What was the point of this post?

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1978613 16-Mar-2018 13:22

The "some other country did or didn't do it" is not an argument and never will be. If it was, no country would have given women the vote yet.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978621 16-Mar-2018 13:32

Fred99:

Wow - 11 pages of responses in such a short time.

On such an important issue too - so important that other countries - many of them arguably far more "nanny state" than NZ - have looked at the possibility of introducing compulsory helmet laws for everyone - and rejected them, those against sometimes using the impact of NZ laws as an argument.

What impact of NZ laws?

Bike sales have risen. Lives have been saved or injuries minimised.

scetoaux

56 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 15

#1978637 16-Mar-2018 13:52

I've been a keen cyclist for most of my life, for both recreation and commuting. While I always adhere to the mandatory helmet law, I don't think it should exist.

When I'm commuting or doing some light trail riding, I wear a standard open-face helmet. If I'm riding downhill MTB trails, I wear a full-face helmet and knee pads at minimum. I don't legally have to, but I understand that the risks are higher for that type of riding, so that's what I personally choose to wear.

There are also times when I would much prefer to cycle helmet free - cycle-ways and quieter roads at a leisurely pace. In those cases, I find a helmet to be irritating and to lessen my enjoyment of just being out and about on two wheels.

Cycling is such a varied activity that the risks associated with it also vary, and I think the individual should be able to decide for themselves. Likewise, removal of the mandatory helmet law will not prevent anyone from wearing their helmet at all times - if you're in favour of it, you'd be free to continue doing so.

Cycling is good for both physical and mental health and reduces pollution and congestion. I think we should be encouraging it's uptake as much as possible rather than putting up barriers to it's adoption.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1978643 16-Mar-2018 13:58

networkn:

Fred99:

Wow - 11 pages of responses in such a short time.

On such an important issue too - so important that other countries - many of them arguably far more "nanny state" than NZ - have looked at the possibility of introducing compulsory helmet laws for everyone - and rejected them, those against sometimes using the impact of NZ laws as an argument.

What was the point of this post?

Not to elicit a pointless response.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1978647 16-Mar-2018 14:01

tdgeek:

Fred99:

Wow - 11 pages of responses in such a short time.

On such an important issue too - so important that other countries - many of them arguably far more "nanny state" than NZ - have looked at the possibility of introducing compulsory helmet laws for everyone - and rejected them, those against sometimes using the impact of NZ laws as an argument.

What impact of NZ laws?

Bike sales have risen. Lives have been saved or injuries minimised.

Yet I see very very few people riding bikes - except as a "recreational activity" rather than transport.

What I highlighted is arguably not true "on balance". Though with the massive change in the way cycles are used these days compared to pre-helmet days, presenting charts and data to prove a point either way is mainly futile.

I suspect that if helmets were made voluntary, many people would continue to wear them anyway.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1978649 16-Mar-2018 14:04

scetoaux:

I've been a keen cyclist for most of my life, for both recreation and commuting. While I always adhere to the mandatory helmet law, I don't think it should exist.

When I'm commuting or doing some light trail riding, I wear a standard open-face helmet. If I'm riding downhill MTB trails, I wear a full-face helmet and knee pads at minimum. I don't legally have to, but I understand that the risks are higher for that type of riding, so that's what I personally choose to wear.

There are also times when I would much prefer to cycle helmet free - cycle-ways and quieter roads at a leisurely pace. In those cases, I find a helmet to be irritating and to lessen my enjoyment of just being out and about on two wheels.

Cycling is such a varied activity that the risks associated with it also vary, and I think the individual should be able to decide for themselves. Likewise, removal of the mandatory helmet law will not prevent anyone from wearing their helmet at all times - if you're in favour of it, you'd be free to continue doing so.

Cycling is good for both physical and mental health and reduces pollution and congestion. I think we should be encouraging it's uptake as much as possible rather than putting up barriers to it's adoption.

I understand but to me mandatory helmets on the roads are far more important than minor irritation as a) I don't want to see you living out your life in a damaged or vegetative state due to head injury (or dead or just taking up space in a ward) and b) I don't want kids to grow up thinking it's acceptable to ride on the roads without a lid.

The argument that it puts people off cycling doesn't washwith me. If the helmet is that terrible then fine, don't cycle.

FFS just get a light, comfortable helmet that fits properly. They do exist!