Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973728 13-Mar-2018 08:26

sxz:

I think it should be optional for adults.

I ride to work most days, and would continue wearing a helmet on my commute. I think there are too many idiots on the road not to.

But when I'm cruising up the beach, or the park, or on a quiet trail, there is just no need for me to wear a helmet. I am no more likely to fall off or have a collision than any pedestrian would - and pedestrian's don't have to wear helmets.

The argument that cyclists without helmets are more likely to get hurt, so should pay their own medical costs, is just plain dumb. With that logic, all rugby players should pay their own medical costs. And smokers. And fat people. And people who don't exercise.

Optional off road, compulsory on road, which is what i think you are getting at.

kotuku4

483 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1973729 13-Mar-2018 08:37

One argument I see missing in this free choice for adults assertion. I know from dealing with children that I can't tell them that they must do something, and then not do it myself, or say that I choose not to. 'Do as I say not as I do', this does not work!

I don't like wearing hats or helmets or wearing Hi vis, but I cycle and ride motorcycles sometimes, and have to wear hard hats on construction and building sites.
There is clear evidence on the benefits of wearing helmets, PPE. And in NZ I think that it is necessary.

I see people riding along with helmets half off their head, and or chin straps flying in the breeze, or none and I think what an idiot. The fines should be greater for all these driving and road related infringements, the current fines can hardly cover the administration costs and are not much of a deterrent or punishment.

gcorgnet:

tdgeek:

Why children? because their life is more valuable than an adults? I dont think so. While a kid is less experienced, they will be lower risk than an adult who rides further and rides more in heavier traffic areas. If riding a cycle on a road doesnt need a helmet you can argue that motorcyclists riding in 50k areas don't need one either. Riding in the traffic flow is safer than riding beside the faster traffic flow

It was more the fact that children are less experience and, to me, more likely to do random things or crash. I guess we are not talking about cyclists being clipped by cars here. There's also the self-inflicted crash to think about (eg: loss of control, slip on something, etc..) and in my opinion young children are more likely to have that happen.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973732 13-Mar-2018 08:41

sxz:

If it's summer, and you are at the beach to get the paper and some milk, and you are riding about 10kmh, there is no need for a helmet. You are at no more risk than a runner. It's daft to be at the discretion of a police officer as to whether or not they fine you.

The article isn't suggesting that it suggest that helmets anywhere are optional. Your example, and others of non car roads etc makes perfect sense

trig42

5814 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1973733 13-Mar-2018 08:42

The helmet law at the moment must be one of the most commonly broken and under-enforced law we have.

Every day I see cyclists in the city without helmets.

The Onzo bikes that litter the footpaths everywhere generally have no helmets.

Is there any point keeping a law that no-one enforces or follows?

I would wear a helmet if I was riding a bike on the roads, or even for any great distance off the roads. Like wearing a seatbelt, it costs nothing, and could save my life.

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1973736 13-Mar-2018 08:52

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Cycling2017.pdf

Seems to be a good report, Indicates that today cyclists have a higher fatality rate thank cars per km traveled but also notes that this may improve if more people cycle

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

sidefx

3712 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1973742 13-Mar-2018 08:59

Hmmm, my immediate reaction was no (EDIT: As in no change is needed to the law), but reading the article I'm for more people cycling and taking cars off the road... do the helmet laws really depress the number of people cycle though? I'm skeptical and have never had an issue with wearing a helmet.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973748 13-Mar-2018 09:05

Beccara:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Cycling2017.pdf

Seems to be a good report, Indicates that today cyclists have a higher fatality rate thank cars per km traveled but also notes that this may improve if more people cycle

I dont follow that. Unless they feel that if more cycled there will be less cars to run into them? I think that's obvious. But its a good report, and unlike the Stuff article which says there was only 5 deaths, implying lets get rid of helmets, the fact is its far more risky than cars

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1973751 13-Mar-2018 09:10

tdgeek:

sxz:

I think it should be optional for adults.

I ride to work most days, and would continue wearing a helmet on my commute. I think there are too many idiots on the road not to.

But when I'm cruising up the beach, or the park, or on a quiet trail, there is just no need for me to wear a helmet. I am no more likely to fall off or have a collision than any pedestrian would - and pedestrian's don't have to wear helmets.

The argument that cyclists without helmets are more likely to get hurt, so should pay their own medical costs, is just plain dumb. With that logic, all rugby players should pay their own medical costs. And smokers. And fat people. And people who don't exercise.

Optional off road, compulsory on road, which is what i think you are getting at.

and

tdgeek:

sxz:

If it's summer, and you are at the beach to get the paper and some milk, and you are riding about 10kmh, there is no need for a helmet. You are at no more risk than a runner. It's daft to be at the discretion of a police officer as to whether or not they fine you.

The article isn't suggesting that it suggest that helmets anywhere are optional. Your example, and others of non car roads etc makes perfect sense

It's not that simple, so no. I think it should be optional at all times.

'Road' has a very wide definition in the LTA (see below). This is done for good reason, so people can be prevented from driving like idiots on beaches, parks, footpaths etc. etc. But this approach makes it hard to make a practical list of places where you should be able to ride your bike without a helmet. Under current law, I'm breaking the law if I ride on a beach at low tide at 8kmh without a helmet. That's just dumb. Breaking the law on my own driveway. Dumb. Park. Dumb.

Yes - you could make it compulsory to wear a helmet on a street - but there are plenty of situations where it can be done safely on a street (and yes I am mostly thinking of summer vacation and going down to get an icecream in a quiet town).

road includes—

(a) a street; and

(b) a motorway; and

(c) a beach; and

(d) a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and

(e) all bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway, or a place referred to inparagraph (d); and

(f) all sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment

Not sure if there are many snowboarders or skiers here, but it's not compulsory to wear a helmet there either - but in the past 10 years I'd estimate helmet use has gone from maybe 20% to maybe 80%. Quite frankly, most people use their brain, and if they are doing something dangerous, they wear a helmet. A law isn't needed.

Wheelbarrow01

1725 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#1973758 13-Mar-2018 09:22

I am not a fan of rules for the sake of rules but the helmet law seems like a no brainer to me, and I grew up in a time when it wasn't compulsory. No matter how competent a rider you think you are, you cannot control the actions of others - particularly the actions of somebody else that could cause you to go over the handle bars of your bike. In that situation you are unlikely to react in time and your head is probably going to hit the pavement - or the vehicle that hits you - or the pole/parked car you weren't looking at..

To give you an idea of the damage that head injuries can do, a friend of mine was involved in a relatively minor car accident 6 years ago. She was driving her car when she was T-boned at an intersection at suburban speed. Her car was pushed sideways and mounted the curb in the process. The sudden vertical movement of the vehicle when this happened caused her to lurch out of her seat in an upwards direction and she hit the top of her head on the roof of the car. She also possibly hit the side of her head against the driver door window (but it didn't break). Obviously she was wearing her seatbelt but there was enough slack in it under those circumstances for an impact to occur.

Bear in mind that the roof of a car has a softish material lining, and of course the roof itself is just sheet metal so it has some give. She had no visible injury and walked away from that incident. Even so, she suffered a severe concussion which has adversely affected her life ever since. For weeks afterward she would forget what she was doing and where she was and I can personally attest that she was irritable and irrational for seemingly no reason for months afterward. She was forced to abandon her radiology studies as she now cannot concentrate, and cannot stare at a computer screen or tv for very long at all. These things are life changing as she will now never be what she wanted to be.

Compared to a cyclist's head hitting a hard pavement, the collision of my friend's head with the roof of her car would be considered far less likely to cause serious long term injury. Yet it did, so I can only imagine what happens in a cycling accident with no helmet. Personal choice is one thing, but having to live with the lifelong effects of a serious injury that could have been mitigated by a helmet is just foolish in my opinion.

That's just my 2 cents worth anyway.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1973763 13-Mar-2018 09:30

Most of the people I see cycling without helmets look like drop-kicks.

The guy that took the cake was cycling on an unlit bike, no helmet, in the dark, black clothing while texting and also smoking a cigarette (it was actually the cigarette that revealed his presence). On one level quite that's impressive multi-tasking. On another level, how much stupid can you engage in at one time?

Mike

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973768 13-Mar-2018 09:35

Colleague of mine was hit by a car at low speed, hit his head on road, no helmet, this was before it was compulsory. He came back to work fine, no lasting injuries. Six months he was off work.

myopinion

938 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1973772 13-Mar-2018 09:41

We should have a choice. Not wearing one is not about vanity for me, its about freedom and having the wind in my hair. Its more fun and convenient without a helmet. Just like condoms really.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973777 13-Mar-2018 09:43

Years ago, one of my ex wifes brothers had a serious crash on his MTB whilst riding a trail in Rotorua. He was unconscious for two weeks and had severe brain swelling. 17 years later he's still not the person he was, he's a little slow with some thought patterns, but he's fully functional. Without a helmet he'd be dead.

A few years back a colleague of mine had a low speed crash (travelling at under 20kmh) on his road bike but still managed to get severe concussion and was off work for quite a few months. I'd hate to think what would have happened if he'd not had a helmet.

Similarly, about a year ago an inattentive pedestrian stepped out onto a road without looking and knocked a friend of mine (top triathlete who regularly qualifies for Kona) off her bike. She's just qualified for Kona again at the Taupo Ironman but is still suffering the effects of her concussion which, in the immediate aftermath of the crash, sidelined her from work and training for a few months. Again, it would have been a lot worse without a helmet.

I also had a bad spill in 1999 in a road cycling event up north, going downhill at ~70kmh, which resulted in some quite bad injuries. I later discovered my helmet was badly cracked down one side but I couldn't remember my head hitting the ground. No concussion fortunately.

For me, the argument is also a no brainer (pardon the pun) - helmets save lives and reduce the impact (argh, another one!) of injuries. Not just for the rider involved but family and friends have have to pick up the pieces (couldn't help it...).

EDIT: Added "crash" to first sentence.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1973778 13-Mar-2018 09:44

tdgeek:

Beccara:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Cycling2017.pdf

Seems to be a good report, Indicates that today cyclists have a higher fatality rate thank cars per km traveled but also notes that this may improve if more people cycle

I don't follow that. Unless they feel that if more cycled there will be less cars to run into them? I think that's obvious. But its a good report ...

The theory is: -

1) If there are more cyclists, motorists have them front of mind/expect to encounter them and drive accordingly.

2) If there are more cyclists, roads are built in a way that is safer for cycling

Something I noted in the report is that 'non-traffic' (whatever they are) cycle accidents are responsible for the lion's share of hospital stays.

Mike

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973779 13-Mar-2018 09:46

myopinion:

We should have a choice. Not wearing one is not about vanity for me, its about freedom and having the wind in my hair. Its more fun and convenient without a helmet. Just like condoms really.

Same with me and my motorbike. Cyclists, (I have a pretty cool cycle) have much more chance of injury or death than cars, so on that, motorcyclists have much more chance than cyclists so we should all be helmet free. If you want that freedom and happy with the risk, i dont want my tax dollars paying for it. You and I can ride our cycle off road if we like or where there are no cars, so that we then have a more pedestrian level of risk

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22