Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980875 21-Mar-2018 09:46

Rikkitic:

I think we are straying from the topic here. The point is not whether someone wants to wear a balloon or a pot on their head, or how much it costs, but their right to choose to wear nothing at all so they can smash their head against the pavement like those melons we see splattering all over the place.

I have no issue with this, so long as they either a) Don't get medical attention from a public hospital, or b) get a bill for it

Tinkerisk

4224 posts

Uber Geek

#1981093 21-Mar-2018 16:30

afe66:

Alcohol is also cancer causing which amused me when I saw an winery cycling event raising funds for the Cancer Society

Wrong. Too much alcohol could cause ... - but this is the case with nearly everything when consumed too much.

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

stuartmac

66 posts

Master Geek

#1981217 21-Mar-2018 19:48

networkn:

I have no issue with this, so long as they either a) Don't get medical attention from a public hospital, or b) get a bill for it

You are posting to the wrong thread I think - you need the "I am disadvantaged by NZ's no-fault ACC scheme and universal healthcare" thread.

You should complain about the unfairness of cyclists without helmets, boaties without lifejackets, drivers who do not wear seatbelts or speed, ill-equipped trampers, obese people and so on and so on elsewhere.

I have some sympathy with your general point, but do not think there is anything unique in your argument to single out cyclists and safety gear.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981246 21-Mar-2018 22:03

stuartmac:

networkn:

I have no issue with this, so long as they either a) Don't get medical attention from a public hospital, or b) get a bill for it

You are posting to the wrong thread I think - you need the "I am disadvantaged by NZ's no-fault ACC scheme and universal healthcare" thread.

You should complain about the unfairness of cyclists without helmets, boaties without lifejackets, drivers who do not wear seatbelts or speed, ill-equipped trampers, obese people and so on and so on elsewhere.

I have some sympathy with your general point, but do not think there is anything unique in your argument to single out cyclists and safety gear.

No fault is one thing. Contributory negligence - the legal term meaning "being an idiot" - is quite another.

Sad to say but I suspect that the 'no fault' concept is a contributory factor in excess workplace deaths/injuries, excess tourism activity deaths/injuries and so on.

There's often no penalty so no responsibility.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981248 21-Mar-2018 22:06

tdgeek:

My cycle helmet is light and not large. if it had an airbag, it will be intrusive possibly. Air bag, pressure thingie etc. You or I may not care about a $500 helmet, but I assure you many families of two parents and two children will.

You have not really looked at the video I posted, or the website, have you?

The helmet does not 'have' an airbag. The helmet IS an airbag. It lives in a scarf round your neck until you have an accident.

Of what relevance is the fact that some people will choose to buy it and some will not? As I said - there are cheaper options.

[Mod: Murph - PLEASE don't overquote...]

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981307 22-Mar-2018 07:15

No, I hadnt watched it. Just did. It is cumbersome. I don't see its relevance at all. If it happened to be somewhat safer (and many here feel a helmet doesn't make much difference) you just end up with a helmet that is somewhat cumbersome and somewhat safer than the standard helmet. Plus few will buy one as it looks silly around the neck, cumbersome to wear and costs more than many cycles.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1981309 22-Mar-2018 07:59

Geektastic:

stuartmac:

networkn:

I have no issue with this, so long as they either a) Don't get medical attention from a public hospital, or b) get a bill for it

You are posting to the wrong thread I think - you need the "I am disadvantaged by NZ's no-fault ACC scheme and universal healthcare" thread.

You should complain about the unfairness of cyclists without helmets, boaties without lifejackets, drivers who do not wear seatbelts or speed, ill-equipped trampers, obese people and so on and so on elsewhere.

I have some sympathy with your general point, but do not think there is anything unique in your argument to single out cyclists and safety gear.

No fault is one thing. Contributory negligence - the legal term meaning "being an idiot" - is quite another.

Sad to say but I suspect that the 'no fault' concept is a contributory factor in excess workplace deaths/injuries, excess tourism activity deaths/injuries and so on.

There's often no penalty so no responsibility.

With only a few exceptions (i.e. act of god) there is no such thing as an "accident". Someone usually has done something (or not done something as the case may be) to contribute or cause the incident, crash, trauma, whatever, or at least contribute to the severity of the outcome, such as the cyclist not wearing a helmet.

If ACC wasn't a no fault scheme, and didn't pay out when an individual was found to be at fault or contributory negligent then I reckon I could list the cases that they payout on annually on a post-it note, and we would be like the USA with rampant suing for damages.

The position that if cyclists choose not to wear a helmet then they waive their right to medical care is of course ridiculous, as if you apply that thinking across everything humans do then we end up in the situation above where no one would get ACC.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981315 22-Mar-2018 08:17

https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/102357890/meagre-turnout-for-helmet-ride-for-choice-protest

Says it all. Its not the be all and end all that the noisy few make it out to be

Key points

- New Zealand should be ashamed of itself

-The idea that cycling was dangerous was simply a misconception

- he believed that adults should decide if their children wore helmets

- To school children, looking good is the three most important things in their lives.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1981330 22-Mar-2018 09:05

stuartmac:

I should be able to go cycling as an everyday activity in street clothes. Most people feel they cannot do that as it is perceived as too dangerous. There IS evidence of that, and it is incorrect to state that mandatory helmet laws are not a significant contributor.

I'm struggling to follow your argument here but ...

You can go cycling in everyday street clothes (with helmet). Specialist cycling clothing 't really protect you in the case of an accident - compare it to specialist motorcycling clothing.

Arguably an everyday pair of jeans provides more protection (and privacy) than spandex.

The only down side of cycling in street clothes that I'm aware of is the clothes aren't designed for cycling and may wear faster, and you need to keep the away for the chain.

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1981332 22-Mar-2018 09:09

stuartmac:

So this leads to the argument from me that - given we have 400 deaths per year on our roads - we should reduce all speed limits by 20%.

You mean to 80kmh? When we had that speed limit the road toll was about 600 (with a smaller population).

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1981334 22-Mar-2018 09:20

stuartmac:

The current cycling environment - of which mandatory helmet laws part of - reduce cycling participation to only athletic or risk-taking individuals. This means primarily young or middle-age males.

That gender bias could also be explained by investment in hairstyle ... although that is become a more gender equal obsession.

In Barcelona ... where helmets on bicycles and mopeds were either voluntary or not enforced I noticed most young women riding bicycles and moped did not wear helmets. At the same time a reasonable proportion of the male riders were wearing helmets.

There did seem to be an organised approach on the part of all parties. On major roads, cyclists occupied the right edge of the road (2 or 3 abreast), mopeds just outside of them (2 abreast) and cars in the next lane over.

Just another anecdotal observation, but it was an immediate impression.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981348 22-Mar-2018 10:01

breathing causes cancer

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1981370 22-Mar-2018 10:43

networkn:

breathing causes cancer

Image result for bubble wrap kids meme

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981605 22-Mar-2018 15:15

tdgeek:

No, I hadnt watched it. Just did. It is cumbersome. I don't see its relevance at all. If it happened to be somewhat safer (and many here feel a helmet doesn't make much difference) you just end up with a helmet that is somewhat cumbersome and somewhat safer than the standard helmet. Plus few will buy one as it looks silly around the neck, cumbersome to wear and costs more than many cycles.

Your suggestion that 'few will buy it' rather flies in the face of the success the company is...! Their revenue is over SEK50 million (About NZ$10 million)

Also, the point of a free market is choice. Normal bike helmets look silly also and there are plenty of people in the world (and even in NZ) who are quite willing to pay for what they want. Perhaps you are not one of them, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

Their product is also extremely good.

"In 2012 the Swedish insurance company Folksam tested 13 cycle helmets on the market. They carried out an impact test on the same principles as for CE marking but with a higher impact speed, 25 km/h instead of 20 km/h.

All the traditional helmets achieved G-force ranging from 196 to 294 g. The lower the value, the better the helmet’s ability to protect the cyclist’s head in an accident. Hövding achieved 65 g, providing at least three times better shock absorption than the other helmets"

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1981632 22-Mar-2018 16:14

mattwnz:

Or do police not bother with cyclists? Could still cause a serious accident. I believe cyclists are still required to abide by all the relevant road rules.

I've seen cops drive past cyclists pedalling along the at night road without helmets or lights. One block from the police station no less.

Mike

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22