Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 22

41 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#1974211 13-Mar-2018 20:32

Excuse the pun but it's a no brainer...

There are accidents and fatalities, but there are also considerable cost benefits and ergo mortality decrease based on this.

https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/university-of-auckland-get-just-5-of-nz-cycling-save-117-lives-each-year/

Considering the amount of people cycling has decreased by 50% since the law was passed in 1994, looking at population growth you can extrapolate this out to 2487 people may have passed unnecessarily as a consequence. That is a horrific price to pay for a poor emotive law.

Before the trolls hit, I cycle, and I wear a helmet. This should not be the determinate to activity and ongoing health benefits.

mudguard

2328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#1974218 13-Mar-2018 20:49

About two or three times a year I choose to slow myself down on my mountainbike using my helmet.
Vehicle tariffs were phased out by about 1990. Used imports went from 3000 units in 1985 to 85,000 on 1990 so the bike as transport was probably losing popularity

GJones

41 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#1974225 13-Mar-2018 21:07

I'm not saying the only reason for the decline is the helmet law, but what I was pointing out was the health cost of the decline. That does not change. If this can be encouraged then it is a good thing, even in small ratios.

As to head v path mountain biking it's always a needs must scenario. If I was going down a trail I would wear a helmet 100% of the time.

I ride a road bike in commuter traffic. I wear a helmet.

To pop down to the park on a Sunday afternoon for a bit of a dawdle. That is a different thing altogether and why not encourage it and give people a free choice in the matter.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974292 13-Mar-2018 22:30

GJones:

Excuse the pun but it's a no brainer...

There are accidents and fatalities, but there are also considerable cost benefits and ergo mortality decrease based on this.

https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/university-of-auckland-get-just-5-of-nz-cycling-save-117-lives-each-year/

Considering the amount of people cycling has decreased by 50% since the law was passed in 1994, looking at population growth you can extrapolate this out to 2487 people may have passed unnecessarily as a consequence. That is a horrific price to pay for a poor emotive law.

Before the trolls hit, I cycle, and I wear a helmet. This should not be the determinate to activity and ongoing health benefits.

You are crediting a 50% reduction in cyclists to the 1994 helmet law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_New_Zealand

A key point is this. The helmet isn't the reason cycling is less popular. How could a simple helmet cause droves to get off the bike? Its dangerous mixing it with other traffic. They are still in wide use but not as much a daily driver. The Govt doesnt support cycling, but in recent years it does, or at least ChCh where I am dos as there are cycleways everywhere, I assume its the same elsewhere. Cycling can be dangerous in traffic, thats why its moved more from commuter to leisure. As cycleways continue, the daily driver use will grow

In the 1950s and 60s government transport funding and policies favouring motor vehicles as the transport of the future, along with the increasing affordability of automobiles, spurred a rise in motor vehicles. New Zealand soon had, and still has, one of the highest rates of car dependence in the world.

As well as abandoning bicycles (and public transport) in favour of cars, the remaining bicyclists were increasingly forced off the streets by the rising danger of motor traffic, relegating bicycles to recreational and sports use. The oil shocks of the 1970s triggered the first of several bicycle resurgences, and new sports bicycles became popular: first, road racing bikes, then BMXs and eventually mountain bikes. By 1990, a survey showed cycling to be the second most popular participation sport in New Zealand. Since then, cycle sales have remained high, averaging over 150,000 per annum. However, their everyday uses, such as for commuting or shopping, is still rare.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974307 13-Mar-2018 22:49

The few googles I located for cycle stats show the same thing. Cycling is alive and well and growing. Contrary to what some are saying that helmets are reducing cycling

Cycling has increased by a significant margin since 2001. For example, cycle import figures suggest a 45% increase in cycle numbers since 2001. The best estimates suggest adult cyclists have increased by 24% to about 730,000, or about 25% of adults."

In https://can.org.nz/system/files/New%20Zealand%20Cycling%20Facts_0.pdf

Other searches all say the same, the issue is roads and traffic. School kids have been declining, (Primary and Intermediate, but High School kids still popular) commuting declined, all due to the state of road network and the danger of other traffic. Leisure cycling is up, as thats safer as you choose where to cycle, which is more difficult if you cycle to school or work or the shops.

Helmets have nothing to do with this. And again, if you want to cycle, a helmet is not a big deal apart from the bodies it has helped.

If cycleways get better and better, expect a growth spurt.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974311 13-Mar-2018 22:55

GJones:

I'm not saying the only reason for the decline is the helmet law, but what I was pointing out was the health cost of the decline. That does not change. If this can be encouraged then it is a good thing, even in small ratios.

I agree, except that helmets are not the cause, as per my recent posts and links. The helmet law was in the period of decline due to danger, although many still cycled but more for leisure than commute due to danger

As to head v path mountain biking it's always a needs must scenario. If I was going down a trail I would wear a helmet 100% of the time.

I ride a road bike in commuter traffic. I wear a helmet.

To pop down to the park on a Sunday afternoon for a bit of a dawdle. That is a different thing altogether and why not encourage it and give people a free choice in the matter.

I agree. If you go on a cycleway that is not on the road, or a trail, or park, I advocate optional helmet, as the main danger, traffic, is not there. Now, if another danger such as skillful trails are there, that has to be common sense, where a helmet.

Happily, cycling is being encouraged these days, and it will lead to more commuting and shopping trips

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.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1461
Inactive user

#1976512 14-Mar-2018 14:29

I'm all for mandatory helmets.

I know someone who was hit on a bike, they hit the road head first. The helmet IMO prevented a nasty head injury.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1976513 14-Mar-2018 14:33

GJones:

I'm not saying the only reason for the decline is the helmet law, but what I was pointing out was the health cost of the decline. That does not change. If this can be encouraged then it is a good thing, even in small ratios.

As to head v path mountain biking it's always a needs must scenario. If I was going down a trail I would wear a helmet 100% of the time.

I ride a road bike in commuter traffic. I wear a helmet.

To pop down to the park on a Sunday afternoon for a bit of a dawdle. That is a different thing altogether and why not encourage it and give people a free choice in the matter.

However that is one of the main arguments being used to get rid of the law.

The problem is that a large number of people are not smart enough to make their own decision on safety, and when it is and isn't appropriate to wear a helmet. Partly it is an age thing, as it has been proven that when you are young, you are more likely to take more risks. Also that sunday afternoon dawdle, may involve first travelling on a road, or you may later decide to travel on the road. Laws are generally there to protect the most vulnerable citizens.

The other thing is that before it became compulsory and the law, many schools actually had rules that required students travelling to school by bike, to wear a helmet. That was certainly the case at my school. I suspect that won't change, due to health and safety laws, as the child will be bring the bike onto schol premises. When the rule came in, it didn't reduce the number of people travelling by bike to school. The same potentially may apply to people who bike to work, if they store their bike at work. IANAL so not sure on the legal stuff involving workplace health and safety, but it seem pretty strict these days, but someone with more knowledge maybe able to comment on what a workplace would require.

IMO if someone chooses not to wear a helmet, they perhaps should be excluded from ACC coverage for that activity, and perhaps should have their own private accident coverage. We have these laws IMO so we can have ACC, allowing us to do these types of more risky activities, and minimise the risk of injury. As soon a we make safety a personal choice, that changes the dynamics of these systems.

gsr

112 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 30

#1976524 14-Mar-2018 14:58

mattwnz:

IMO if someone chooses not to wear a helmet, they perhaps should be excluded from ACC coverage for that activity, and perhaps should have their own private accident coverage. We have these laws IMO so we can have ACC, allowing us to do these types of more risky activities, and minimise the risk of injury. As soon a we make safety a personal choice, that changes the dynamics of these systems.

So are you saying that we should also exclude sports related injuries? We could save ~$300M every year:

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1976528 14-Mar-2018 15:16

Where did I say that? If I was saying that, we shouldn’t allow cycling at all as it is always a safety risk. It is about reducing the risk to a reasonable levels. . Sports should already do that. Part of the reason ACC exists is to allow us to do sports without the huge potential risk of cost from being injured. But it is reasonable to expect that people who do take part in sport, to take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of injury. Eg cyclists wear helmets etc

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1976530 14-Mar-2018 15:19

Helmets should be mandatory on the road. Seeing that preening, self-absorbed fool on TV bleating about how helmet laws reduced cycling numbers etc really annoyed me. I expect our kids to wear their helmets and the last thing we need is a message from the law saying it's not actually that important to wear them.

Lenovo

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

Bung

6734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2928

Subscriber

#1976535 14-Mar-2018 15:30

tdgeek:

You are crediting a 50% reduction in cyclists to the 1994 helmet law?

Is it any coincidence that Sony launched the Playstation in 1994? How do you think a new bike or a playstation for xmas choice would go?

As far as not wearing a helmet on short local trips, the only times my head has touched the ground have been dumb operator errors on a trip 200m down the hill to a neighbour and 1km to supermarket.At the neighbour's I tried a dismount with my cuff caught in the chainwheel. You can't pick where it will happen.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1976537 14-Mar-2018 15:33

mattwnz:

The problem is that a large number of people are not smart enough to make their own decision on safety, and when it is and isn't appropriate to wear a helmet.

That's extremely patronising, and obviously untrue. People make decisions every day on safety. They walk to the dairy, they cross the road, they drive cars. If you give people adequate information, they can make their own decisions.

The exception is children.

When the rule came in, it didn't reduce the number of people travelling by bike to school.

You have stats to back that up? Because the stats say that the use of bicycles has declined steadily since 1994. And consequently there has been a reduction in cyclist injuries. Which the helmet-wanters have misinterpreted as justifying helmets.

Anecdotally, I see a much larger number of children walking to school nowadays, and very few cycling. So I reckon that the number of people travelling by bike to school has dropped significantly. Whether this reduction was caused by helmet rules or by something else is open for debate.

IMO if someone chooses not to wear a helmet, they perhaps should be excluded from ACC coverage for that activity, and perhaps should have their own private accident coverage. We have these laws IMO so we can have ACC, allowing us to do these types of more risky activities, and minimise the risk of injury. As soon a we make safety a personal choice, that changes the dynamics of these systems.

So you would exclude other risky activities from ACC coverage? Sky-diving? Rock climbing? Skiing? Motorsport? Motorcycling? Horse riding? Doing things while drunk? Running with scissors? Tree-climbing? Fishing? Life in your nanny state would be a pale grey gruel of tedia deemed "safe enough" by a committee whose prime interest is their own tenure and who will consequently cover their posteriors by ever-increasing limitations.

The average Kiwi chooses to sometimes do "risky" things like sky-diving and cycling. The freedom to do things like that is a key ingredient in making NZ a good place to live. We have ACC so that lawyers and insurance companies won't get rich at the expense of the average Kiwi.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976541 14-Mar-2018 15:39

frankv:

mattwnz:

The problem is that a large number of people are not smart enough to make their own decision on safety, and when it is and isn't appropriate to wear a helmet.

That's extremely patronising, and obviously untrue. People make decisions every day on safety. They walk to the dairy, they cross the road, they drive cars. If you give people adequate information, they can make their own decisions.

The exception is children.

When the rule came in, it didn't reduce the number of people travelling by bike to school.

You have stats to back that up? Because the stats say that the use of bicycles has declined steadily since 1994. And consequently there has been a reduction in cyclist injuries. Which the helmet-wanters have misinterpreted as justifying helmets.

Anecdotally, I see a much larger number of children walking to school nowadays, and very few cycling. So I reckon that the number of people travelling by bike to school has dropped significantly. Whether this reduction was caused by helmet rules or by something else is open for debate.

IMO if someone chooses not to wear a helmet, they perhaps should be excluded from ACC coverage for that activity, and perhaps should have their own private accident coverage. We have these laws IMO so we can have ACC, allowing us to do these types of more risky activities, and minimise the risk of injury. As soon a we make safety a personal choice, that changes the dynamics of these systems.

So you would exclude other risky activities from ACC coverage? Sky-diving? Rock climbing? Skiing? Motorsport? Motorcycling? Horse riding? Doing things while drunk? Running with scissors? Tree-climbing? Fishing? Life in your nanny state would be a pale grey gruel of tedia deemed "safe enough" by a committee whose prime interest is their own tenure and who will consequently cover their posteriors by ever-increasing limitations.

The average Kiwi chooses to sometimes do "risky" things like sky-diving and cycling. The freedom to do things like that is a key ingredient in making NZ a good place to live. We have ACC so that lawyers and insurance companies won't get rich at the expense of the average Kiwi.

Read my links. It was dangers on the road that reduced commuting and primary and Intermediate kids riding to school. The sales of cycles has actually risen not declined, but more towards leisure and health than commuting. Now, cycleways are bringing back the commuting aspect which is great. 1994 is within that period of change, its not the cause. Who would stop riding a bike because of a helmet? A grumble at best

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1976579 14-Mar-2018 16:15

frankv:
That's extremely patronising, and obviously untrue. People make decisions every day on safety. They walk to the dairy, they cross the road, they drive cars. If you give people adequate information, they can make their own decisions.

No. Often safety is totally outside a persons control. A idiot in a car who doesn’t check traffic before opening a car door can cause a life changing injury for a cyclist, who end up hitting that door. That cyclist has no control over this. Hence why laws exist, to protect people from the idiots out there.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 22