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 | 12 | ... | 22

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1976581 14-Mar-2018 16:20

frankv:
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.

Yes. The bike shed was just as full as it ever was. Maybe people weren’t as vain back then for it to even be an issue? In fact at that time a whole new range of lightweight helmets had come out and they were seen as ‘cool’ to wear, especially compared to the old stack hats and pro elite helmets.

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#1976588 14-Mar-2018 16:37

So, would any of the pro-helmet brigade support compulsory flack jackets and a deregulated gun laws? If someone is accidentally shot and they are not wearing body armor, then we'll charge the victim and deny them hospital care. It is the same situation as cyclists are in now. Vehicles are deadly weapons and should be treated as such. Drivers that injure cyclists should have their cars confiscated and their licence revoked, just like gun owners who injure people are treated.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1976591 14-Mar-2018 16:45

That's a truly absurd argument. By cycling you are electing to engage in an activity with a known risk. There is no demonstrated known risk to require wearing a flak jacket, unless perhaps you are in a war zone. If that's the case and you're not wearing a flak jacket then you're a bleedin' idiot and there probably is a rule in force mandating one.

And yes, drivers that injure cyclists already can and do have their cars confiscated , licences revoked etc if they were using them illegally, dangerously or recklessly.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1976603 14-Mar-2018 17:01

At the end of the day it all comes down to common sense, and using the tools available to minimize risk. IMO, that is what the current law does. At one stage helmets were considered too expensive, which discouraged use, so they heavily subsidized them down to $20 when I was at school, which meant everyone got one.

I am not sure if life jackets in small boats are compulsory yet (although they should be IMO). But it is a similar argument. Often when you hear of a boating accident, and people killed, the one thing you hear the media say, is that they weren't wearing lifejackets. Even when they are, the life jackets can be ancient and unsafe. It doesn't appear we can trust people to wear them voluntarily. When someone dies in a ATV or cycle accident, it will usually be reported whether they were wearing a helmet or not. Some people seem to think it is 'nanny state' law, but then again laws are there to protect people from themselves and others.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1976605 14-Mar-2018 17:05

debo:

So, would any of the pro-helmet brigade support compulsory flack jackets and a deregulated gun laws?

IMO our gun laws and ease of access to guns are way to lax as they are. Not as bad as the US, but we aren't a shining example of best practice IMO.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1976606 14-Mar-2018 17:05

mattwnz:

I am not sure if life jackets in small boats are compulsory yet (although they should be IMO).

I think that's under regional bylaws. For my boat, operating in the Waikato river, I have to carry lifejackets for all aboard but they don't have to be worn. I never allow anyone onboard to not have one worn. That's in a sheltered waterway. The bylaw says if we go outside sheltered waters, e.g. out the Port Waikato bar, then lifejackets must be worn. The rangers can write you out a ticket (fine) for non compliance.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#1976619 14-Mar-2018 17:13

kryptonjohn:

That's a truly absurd argument. By cycling you are electing to engage in an activity with a known risk. There is no demonstrated known risk to require wearing a flak jacket, unless perhaps you are in a war zone. If that's the case and you're not wearing a flak jacket then you're a bleedin' idiot and there probably is a rule in force mandating one.

And yes, drivers that injure cyclists already can and do have their cars confiscated , licences revoked etc if they were using them illegally, dangerously or recklessly.

Cycling is only risky because of vehicles. And vehicles are only risky because drives are reckless with them. Car drivers only get charged in extreme situations, gun owners always get charged, even if no one is injured.

"There is no demonstrated known risk to require wearing a flak jacket" only because the gun laws are currently sufficient to protect people. If the laws changed to something like the current road laws, then it would be like a war zone out there. This was my point before.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1976624 14-Mar-2018 17:14

debo:

only risky because of vehicles.

Nonsense.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1976626 14-Mar-2018 17:22

debo:

Cycling is only risky because of vehicles.

Have you ever cycled before? I have had several accidents, and only once was it due to a vehicle. Most of the time is it uneven ground, and the tyre getting caught in a rut. The state of some of our roads also is not good for cycling, especially at the edges which is where cyclists are supposed to ride. Infact our local council decided to remove all the cycle lanes in my area, and removed the 'cycle painted symbols', and turned them into car parking bays, so they are no longer officially 'cycle lanes'. .So now we have to swerve in and out of the bays when riding on the road, and watch out for potential hazards with car doors opening. Opeing doors on cars is my number one fear when on the roads.

I can see why cycling has decreased with kids, because as a parent I would be reluctant these days to allow my kid to ride on the road with the very heavy traffic flows we now have.

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#1976630 14-Mar-2018 17:30

mattwnz:

.. car doors opening... very heavy traffic flows we now have.

Exactly. Now would it not be great if drivers treated their cars like they were lethal weapons and started to care about US cyclists. If drivers lost their license and got their car confiscated for opening their doors onto cyclists, then they would soon lean to stop doing it.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1976652 14-Mar-2018 17:53

debo:

Cycling is only risky because of vehicles. And vehicles are only risky because drives are reckless with them. [....]

What?

Are you saying that the vehicle drivers are always in the wrong, because all cyclists are immaculately law-abiding and no cyclist would ever do anything reckless like run a red light, ride on the footpath, cycle the wrong way up an one-way street, or fail to indicate on a roundabout?

Are you also saying that cycles are perfect examples of engineering, and would never fail or skid because they failed to grip on a wet road at speed?

And are you also saying that the roads on which cyclists ride are perfect, and they would never be pitched off their bike by a slippery surface, unexpected pothole, or piece of debris?

And while you are at it, are you also saying that all cyclists are always courteous and would never do anything to annoy other drivers like cycle slowly two- or three-abreast?

No? I thought not.

Some cycle accidents are caused by reckless and idiotic vehicle drivers. However, others are caused by reckless and idiotic cyclists. To assert that in cycle accidents it is always and everywhere a non-cyclist who was fully at fault isn't credible.

Dell

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

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#1976676 14-Mar-2018 18:54

JimmyH:

debo:

Cycling is only risky because of vehicles. And vehicles are only risky because drives are reckless with them. [....]

What?

Are you saying that the vehicle drivers are always in the wrong, because all cyclists are immaculately law-abiding and no cyclist would ever do anything reckless like run a red light, ride on the footpath, cycle the wrong way up an one-way street, or fail to indicate on a roundabout?

Are you also saying that cycles are perfect examples of engineering, and would never fail or skid because they failed to grip on a wet road at speed?

And are you also saying that the roads on which cyclists ride are perfect, and they would never be pitched off their bike by a slippery surface, unexpected pothole, or piece of debris?

And while you are at it, are you also saying that all cyclists are always courteous and would never do anything to annoy other drivers like cycle slowly two- or three-abreast?

No? I thought not.

Some cycle accidents are caused by reckless and idiotic vehicle drivers. However, others are caused by reckless and idiotic cyclists. To assert that in cycle accidents it is always and everywhere a non-cyclist who was fully at fault isn't credible.

Sorry, I mean cycling for me is only risky because of vehicles.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1976679 14-Mar-2018 18:59

debo:

Cycling is only risky because of vehicles.

Cycling is risky because there isn't sufficient infrastructure to make it safe. In countries where there are separate cycle lanes (and cycle lanes aren't seen as a door-opening adjunct to car parks), cycling is much safer than here.

There's a bit of chicken-and-egg though; you can't justify spending millions on cycleways if there are only a few cyclists, and people don't become cyclists if they have to share the road with cars and trucks.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976682 14-Mar-2018 19:05

mattwnz:

debo:

Cycling is only risky because of vehicles.

Have you ever cycled before? I have had several accidents, and only once was it due to a vehicle. Most of the time is it uneven ground, and the tyre getting caught in a rut. The state of some of our roads also is not good for cycling, especially at the edges which is where cyclists are supposed to ride. Infact our local council decided to remove all the cycle lanes in my area, and removed the 'cycle painted symbols', and turned them into car parking bays, so they are no longer officially 'cycle lanes'. .So now we have to swerve in and out of the bays when riding on the road, and watch out for potential hazards with car doors opening. Opeing doors on cars is my number one fear when on the roads.

I can see why cycling has decreased with kids, because as a parent I would be reluctant these days to allow my kid to ride on the road with the very heavy traffic flows we now have.

I was cycling in Chch one rainy day. I saw 3 cyclists fall in the 10 minutes I passed Hagley park. There were no other animals within 200m of those cyclists who dropped like flies. Reason? Slippery tarmac vs very narrow near-slick tyres.

I now ride a mountain bike with thick knobby tyres :)

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976688 14-Mar-2018 19:19

mattwnz:

At the end of the day it all comes down to common sense, and using the tools available to minimize risk. IMO, that is what the current law does. At one stage helmets were considered too expensive, which discouraged use, so they heavily subsidized them down to $20 when I was at school, which meant everyone got one.

I am not sure if life jackets in small boats are compulsory yet (although they should be IMO). But it is a similar argument. Often when you hear of a boating accident, and people killed, the one thing you hear the media say, is that they weren't wearing lifejackets. Even when they are, the life jackets can be ancient and unsafe. It doesn't appear we can trust people to wear them voluntarily. When someone dies in a ATV or cycle accident, it will usually be reported whether they were wearing a helmet or not. Some people seem to think it is 'nanny state' law, but then again laws are there to protect people from themselves and others.

Nailed it. I started this thread and I am a bit shocked that a simple helmet that dios help a lot is regarded as an option by some. I really didnt think this thread would go the way it has. In myOP I said its not a nanny state law. Apparently it is. Some say children cannot make the right choice, I agree, neither can some adults. All activities, from pedestrians to sky divers take a risk. They take mandatory or optional safety measures. ACC covers all those. First the state make a law, sensible and proven safety measures, but it isn't really a law for most of us, it just picks up those who are careless.

Its JUST a helmet, Its JUST a seatbelt, there is little difference. Quick, easy, non intrusive, and it works. If seatbelts were not mandatory X% will not use them. Ask the DHB's a year later.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 22