Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 22

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973948 13-Mar-2018 13:24

surfisup1000:

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 .

Make them pay in the health system, ineligible for ACC. Cyclists are high risk, I don't want my tax dollars paying for that. Motorcyclists pay at rego, $528.63 in my case, most of that goes to the health sector. Cyclists don't pay road user charges and that's fine, we dont want that, but if they engage in high risk activities they pay for it. Or make seatbelts optional but mandatory for kids. Same with Hi Vis and whatever other measures are statuted for safety reasons. I hear what you are saying but lets make all safety measures optional, every one, except for kids, it's the same rationale as cycle helmets.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973952 13-Mar-2018 13:30

surfisup1000:

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?

Last years toll was only 5, but cyclist numbers are low. As per the link, per million hours, its much much higher than cars. More pedestrians that bikes Id say as well, many more. Your pedestrian idea is stretching it. I advocate optional helmets where cyclists are off road in cycleways, its low risk of an accident and its low impact as well as compared to an impact with a car or thrown onto a pole. The fact is a fact as to risk, its many times that of a car, so that justifies making all car safety factors optional as well? That would make my future EV a lot cheaper

Edit, and the cycle toll while much higher than cars, is with helmets. Allow for a sector to ride helmetless, and it will grow. The numbers wouild stay the same, but the health cost and injury magnitude will be heavier, as will the ratio of deaths:injuries

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1973956 13-Mar-2018 13:39

surfisup1000:

[

Because cycling (vs cars) is also good for your health and environment.

Daily cycling was bad for my health. Caused me no end of ankle problems, as well as minor injuries from a few spills

I now walk. I suspect it's better for the environment than cycling as it require fewer resources and cyclists on occasion cause congestion on poorly designed roads.

Mike

fizzychicken

318 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 86

#1973979 13-Mar-2018 14:03

I've been in two reasonably major incidents on my bike which resulted in serious injury, in both cases the helmet played no part due to the impact being face first and me landing 'not on my head'. I do still, and always will, wear a helmet. I also possess an over-sized oddly shaped head, this stems from being incredibly tall and bashing my head on door frames year after year, so I always have to get ugly, over-sized, uncomfortable helmets (unless I want to pay through the nose for one). I get hot, and find them irritating but I will still always wear one. Over my many years of cycling I have found the the only real reason people have for not wearing one is that the person just doesn't want to. I dislike the 'it keeps people from riding' theory as I find that someone who wouldn't cycle due to the helmet is most likely not going to go to the gym because they don't like gym gear, or wouldn't run because running shoes give you blisters, or won't do X-activity because it makes you sweat and smell bad. For those who say they are not as safe as people think, maybe I cannot prove that they are but I have witnessed someone have their head run over by a bus and walk away fine because the helmet crumpled around them taking the weight of the vehicle. I also recommend those people try using the top of their head to head-butt a wall...the helmet isn't just about safety...it takes away a lot of pain when you land bad. If you are the kind of rider who thinks that they can handle a bit of pain and can ride without accident all the time then I'm confident in my guess that you also take more risks in riding because your inbuilt god-mode tells you that you will be fine. I you are off-road in a safe slow cycle area then it is up to you what you do, but on the road in a nation where cars are king and cyclists just get in the way...a helmet should be mandatory. My wife's family are from The Netherlands and we go there from time to time, there the bicycle is king of the road and drivers all know to that they must obey cycle lanes and rule....accidents do happen but based on the population of cyclists the numbers are low. I even see a lot of people wearing helmets when they don't have to.

I'm happy for any cyclist without a helmet to come and ride along side me on a leisurely ride....I'll clip your wheel a tad and knock you off...if a car doesn't hit you first we can take some good selfies of your head injury so you can make some nice posters to promote slacker safety rules.

If you hadn't guessed already, I'm a cyclist who hates other cyclists more than I hate realtors (and I hate them with a true passion).

https://keybase.io/fizzychicken

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1973980 13-Mar-2018 14:04

tdgeek:

I can't see how a having to use a helmet will put anyone off.

In Europe, in cities where there is no mandatory helmet laws, there is a higher ration of woman cyclists commuting to work. Helmets muck up hairstyles.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973981 13-Mar-2018 14:07

dafman:

tdgeek:

I can't see how a having to use a helmet will put anyone off.

In Europe, in cities where there is no mandatory helmet laws, there is a higher ration of woman cyclists commuting to work. Helmets muck up hairstyles.

Funnily enough, so do head injuries!

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973986 13-Mar-2018 14:10

dafman:

tdgeek:

I can't see how a having to use a helmet will put anyone off.

In Europe, in cities where there is no mandatory helmet laws, there is a higher ration of woman cyclists commuting to work. Helmets muck up hairstyles.

Oh well, she will be the best presented chick in A+E or the morgue. If its JUST a cycle and its SLOW and the risk is low, but the risk is very high compared to a protective car with seatbelts, and thats with helmets, not without

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 82

#1973987 13-Mar-2018 14:10

trig42:

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.

What about speeding and stopping at red lights? Lots of people don't obey them, should we get rid of those laws as well?

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1974002 13-Mar-2018 14:19

networkn:

dafman:

tdgeek:

I can't see how a having to use a helmet will put anyone off.

In Europe, in cities where there is no mandatory helmet laws, there is a higher ration of woman cyclists commuting to work. Helmets muck up hairstyles.

Funnily enough, so do head injuries!

so helmets should be compulsory for all rugby and league players?

Dulouz

887 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 384

#1974003 13-Mar-2018 14:21

I'm happy for people to wear cycle helmets if they want to, what I'm not happy about is being forced to by the state. I believe that the helmet law does more harm than good and should be repealed. The helmet law has contributed to a decrease in cycling along with a perception that cycling is a dangerous activity. Let the rider decide.

Amanon

myopinion

939 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 112

#1974005 13-Mar-2018 14:24

Something to read about all this helmet stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand

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.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974006 13-Mar-2018 14:26

Dulouz:

I'm happy for people to wear cycle helmets if they want to, what I'm not happy about is being forced to by the state. I believe that the helmet law does more harm than good and should be repealed. The helmet law has contributed to a decrease in cycling along with a perception that cycling is a dangerous activity. Let the rider decide.

It is dangerous, far more so than in a car, and that's using a helmet

It doesnt decrease cycling surely, its just a helmet, flip it on clip in in, easy

We can also repeal many other safety laws, we can all decide then.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1974032 13-Mar-2018 15:16

scuwp:

I am a cyclist, and I agree on having a choice. In saying that I think I am a rational logical person and would choose wisely depending on what riding I am doing, and laws are not made for rational logical thinkers, they are made for the lowest common denominators in society to protect them from themselves.

I would love to see the injury stats/km since the helmet laws were introduced.

The flip side is that helmets allegedly discourage bike use and therefore society suffers more in other ways, obesity, congestion, etc which causes more deaths that not wearing a helmet.

With our very strict health and safety laws, as well as worksafe, I think it is a double standard that they are now trying to make it voluntary. I mean hasn't it been proven to save lives and reduce injury? Or are these more stats that they haven't kept? I believe people have been killed or become injured in life changing ways, as a direct result of not wearing helmets. WE had a woman come to our school whose son was affected, and I believe was one of the people behind making it compulsory. You would think with our health& safety, and worksafe laws, that parents or employers of people who cycle as part of their job, would be required to do a everything practical to minimize injury, which IMO would include wearing helmets. I know someone who was killed when cycling, when a car door opened on them. Also ban bikes from speeding on footpaths, as cars coming out of driveways is a hazard to them.

In terms of discouraging use, that maybe the case ... for vain people who don't want to get 'helmet hair'. But hair can get blown around anyway when not wearing a helmet. I don't get what the issue is with helmets that discourages use. But to be honest it was never an issue when I was at school, which was when the new laws came into effect. It just made sense to wear a helmet. You could also argue that our health and safety laws regarding the food act, and all the compliance costs with that, discourage people going into the food business.

IMO it all comes down to common sense. IMO safety isn't voluntary, the law came in for a reason, and ironically at the time it came in, our health and safety laws were incredibly lax. We do seem to have double standards with health and safety with personal use, versus workplaces. Workplaces are now potentially a lot safer than homes due to the law changes.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974035 13-Mar-2018 15:20

Not using a helmet is mental, but as long as it's ACC and insurance exempt so I'm not paying for their poor life choices then I don't care what people do

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1974053 13-Mar-2018 15:37

mattwnz:

I mean hasn't it been proven to save lives and injury? Or are these more stats that they haven't kept?

I don't believe it's been proven at all. I suspect that the stats haven't been collected, or, [conspiracy theorist mode] they have been collected and they show that helmets are pointless... they would be suppressed to save embarrassment for the Govt and NZTA and all the helmet-zealots.

If it *was* proven to be a good idea, my newly-coined Law of Positive Publicity (*) says that the stats would be broadcast to all and sundry to show what a good idea it was, and to save cyclists' lives.

I know someone who was killed when cycling, when a car door opened on them.

Right. But what was the actual cause of death? Were they wearing a helmet? If so, why didn't it save their life? If not, could a helmet have saved them?

It just made sense to wear a helmet.

Did it? Really? Or was it a pointless expense and item to be carried around?

So, here's a challenge to the pro-helmet brigade... find the stats that show that a helmet does significantly improve a cyclist's life expectancy.

(*) Frank's Law of Positive Publicity: The probability of information being disseminated is proportional to the perceived benefit of the dissemination to the owners of the information.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 22