Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 22

3748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

#1973782 13-Mar-2018 09:47

I personally see it the same as car seat belts. and if you dont wear a helmet you should be fined.

Ive told my son, if I ever see you riding your bike without a helmet, I'm selling the bike and you won't get another one.

its just stupid. but hey so is smoking... falling off a bike on to your head at around 30kph thats going to do some serious harm....

GregV

932 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 304

#1973783 13-Mar-2018 09:47

Wheelbarrow01:

... a relatively minor car accident 6 years ago ... suffered a severe concussion which has adversely affected her life ever since ... 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.

Yet if anyone mentions that car occupants or joggers/runners should wear helmets they get ridiculed.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973792 13-Mar-2018 09:54

MikeAqua:

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.

Wow, that surprises me. The bulk of the accidents seem to happen at commuting time. While all wont be cars hitting them or them getting hit by a car that is the cyclist's fault. I'd have thought that a car involvement is likely for most of accidents, such as avoiding a car and hitting a pole etc

networkn

Networkn
32868 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973794 13-Mar-2018 09:57

How can this even be a choice for a rational intelligent adult? Your head is your most precious and important body part, and surely ANYTHING you can do to protect it is a no brainer (Excuse the pun).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973796 13-Mar-2018 10:01

networkn:

How can this even be a choice for a rational intelligent adult? Your head is your most precious and important body part, and surely ANYTHING you can do to protect it is a no brainer (Excuse the pun).

Hence why I started the thread as the article purports otherwise. We have many nanny state things in place these days, but this isn't one of them

networkn

Networkn
32868 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973798 13-Mar-2018 10:02

You get a fine if you don't wear a helmet, that was introduced when I was a kid if I recall correctly.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

gsr

112 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 30

#1973879 13-Mar-2018 11:24

What about this:

2. Compulsory helmets for road users.

3. Optional helmets for bike paths and trails

4. Legalise riding on footpaths for <12 and >60 year olds

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973890 13-Mar-2018 11:36

gsr:

What about this:

2. Compulsory helmets for road users.

3. Optional helmets for bike paths and trails

4. Legalise riding on footpaths for <12 and >60 year olds

4. Legalise riding on footpaths for <12 and >60 year olds

With the growing number of cycle trails, I think its a good idea to allow footpath riding, where the pedestrian has 100% right of way, between cycleways. A means to keep cycles off the road and to make cycleways more appealing. Your idea has merit, but kids need to be TOLD that its an offence, your parents will be liable if pedestrians are inconvenienced. Perhaps footpaths may become kids highways though

I think cycleways are a great idea but to be worthwhile, they need to be in many places where they can be used for commuting as well as exercise, and legal footpath access between them (only between them) is a good idea.

networkn

Networkn
32868 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973892 13-Mar-2018 11:37

gsr:

What about this:

2. Compulsory helmets for road users.

3. Optional helmets for bike paths and trails

4. Legalise riding on footpaths for <12 and >60 year olds

We ride on foot paths unless we are on a trail. No chance my kids are on the road in Auckland except where there is no choice. The roads are on the whole too narrow and drivers are not considerate enough. If a police officer stops us, I'll talk to him, if we get a fine, I'll pay it, and keep doing it. Fines are cheap compared to hospitals and funerals.

I don't understand peoples objection to a helmet. I have seen people riding well over 40kmph on trails, head vs concrete at that speed....

If you make it optional sometimes, then it becomes harder for people to keep track.

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#1973924 13-Mar-2018 12:38

GregV:

Wheelbarrow01:

... a relatively minor car accident 6 years ago ... suffered a severe concussion which has adversely affected her life ever since ... 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.

Yet if anyone mentions that car occupants or joggers/runners should wear helmets they get ridiculed.

Car occupants already have lifesaving devices - seatbelts and airbags. I can only guess how much more damage my friend might have suffered in her car crash if she had not had her seatbelt fastened. Could the vertical acceleration of mounting the curb also have broken her back? Who knows...

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1973931 13-Mar-2018 12:48

tdgeek:

Why children? because their life is more valuable than an adults?

Because children are too young to make their own decisions.

Just as you would not let a child drive a car (if a car could be adjusted to allow children to drive), because they lack the mental capacity to make safe decisions.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973939 13-Mar-2018 13:00

surfisup1000:

tdgeek:

Why children? because their life is more valuable than an adults?

Because children are too young to make their own decisions.

Just as you would not let a child drive a car (if a car could be adjusted to allow children to drive), because they lack the mental capacity to make safe decisions.

Yes, I get that, but how does that justify that adults who can make decisions are left exposed to death and injury? Cyclists already have a very high injury/death toll even though they have mandatory helmets, to make that a choice will end and affect lives. because some adults wont make a good decision

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1973942 13-Mar-2018 13:10

tdgeek:

We have many nanny state things in place these days, but this isn't one of them

That is your opinion. But, reality is that we do live in a nanny state, plenty of laws tell people how to live their lives, just like parents. This is a good thing usually, but mandatory cycle helmets is a grey area in my view.

The real question is how far do we go in protecting people against themselves?

People who argue for helmet laws only look at one aspect, that wearing a helmet decreases risk of head injury by x%.... so seems simplistic.

But, how many people take more risks when they wear a helmet? How do mandatory helmet laws affect cycling participation? Is cycling healthy and reduce obesity rates? Obesity is a big thing, in fact the human lifespan may start shortening for the first time in history due to obesity related diseases.

Anyway, my view is let adults choose, but make them mandatory for kids who are too young to make balanced decisions .

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973945 13-Mar-2018 13:18

tdgeek:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/102177384/renewed-push-for-review-of-cycle-helmet-law-starts-with-protest-ride-in-wellington

I'm surprised at this. Its a clear safety benefit. I'm all for optional helmets on cycleways that are car free, but cycleways that are on roads should have helmets. The articles "appears" to promote a desire for no enforced helmets at all.

Its hardly a nanny state problem IMHO.

I like my brain too much. I don't need to find evidence for helmets to put a good helmet on.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1973946 13-Mar-2018 13:19

tdgeek:

Yes, I get that, but how does that justify that adults who can make decisions are left exposed to death and injury? Cyclists already have a very high injury/death toll even though they have mandatory helmets, to make that a choice will end and affect lives. because some adults wont make a good decision

Because cycling (vs cars) is also good for your health and environment. You weigh up risks vs benefits. Something children are unable to do.

It also depends on the trip. I live in a reasonably low traffic street, and there is a dairy/beach close by. I can whizz down on my bike very quickly and the risk is quite low. So, I'd probably not wear a helmet if i had the choice .

But, if I were biking into town or heavily congested roads, I would choose to wear a helmet.

I don't know that cyclists have a very high death toll , seems like usually fewer than 10 cyclists die per year.

More pedestrians are killed . Should we make pedestrians wear helmets in that case?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 22