Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 22

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976689 14-Mar-2018 19:24

Batman:

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 :)

:-) and you now have less traction on a dry day! You know F1, you should know that! In that park, whats the worst they will get? Grazes, bruises, stitches, maybe a broken arm, maybe concussion but unlikely. As no cars or concrete 90 degree gutters involved, no high risk, so let them go helmet free. But the anti helmet brigade who are extremists want the world. If the law was changed to mandatory on a car based road, and optional at a park, they will still whinge.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976693 14-Mar-2018 19:28

frankv:

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.

I fully agree. It got dangerous. When I was a kid I cycled everywhere helmet free, took risks. Downhill on Dyers Pass Rd passing cars with my mates (stupid) . When my girls were little and went to primary school, no way they are riding on roads.

Cycleways seem the current trend. No idea if it was the CHC rebuild, or a general trend, but if cycleways continue to grow as you allude to elsewhere, they can be helmet free for sure. Fun, exercise, health. And NO TRAFFIC running at 50-70k, running lights and give way signs, etc.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976712 14-Mar-2018 19:48

tdgeek:

Batman:

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 :)

:-) and you now have less traction on a dry day! You know F1, you should know that! In that park, whats the worst they will get? Grazes, bruises, stitches, maybe a broken arm, maybe concussion but unlikely. As no cars or concrete 90 degree gutters involved, no high risk, so let them go helmet free. But the anti helmet brigade who are extremists want the world. If the law was changed to mandatory on a car based road, and optional at a park, they will still whinge.

More traction on a dry day.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976721 14-Mar-2018 19:58

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman:

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 :)

:-) and you now have less traction on a dry day! You know F1, you should know that! In that park, whats the worst they will get? Grazes, bruises, stitches, maybe a broken arm, maybe concussion but unlikely. As no cars or concrete 90 degree gutters involved, no high risk, so let them go helmet free. But the anti helmet brigade who are extremists want the world. If the law was changed to mandatory on a car based road, and optional at a park, they will still whinge.

More traction on a dry day.

Actually no. Knobblys give you more traction on a wet day as they remove water, and less on a dry day as less rubber meeting the road. Slicks are quick.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976730 14-Mar-2018 20:29

That's not true.

Road slicks are 23mm wide.

My MTB narrow tyres are 2.2" wide. Even with the knobs they have way more traction. (and infinitely higher rolling resistance and require a tonne more effort to pedal)

Falling off a road bike results in breakage of collarbone or wrist, unless you're lucky.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1976733 14-Mar-2018 20:32

I went to school with a kid who went over the handle bars without a helmet.

He wishes he'd worn a helmet. The brain injury he sustained has ruined his life.....

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976734 14-Mar-2018 20:33

and this is how easy it is to slip on a road bike

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976743 14-Mar-2018 20:48

Batman:

and this is how easy it is to slip on a road bike

You make it look like every trip is a fall. if the guy runs his front tyre on an grill edge thats a bit dumb

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976816 14-Mar-2018 22:34

tdgeek:

Batman:

and this is how easy it is to slip on a road bike

You make it look like every trip is a fall. if the guy runs his front tyre on an grill edge thats a bit dumb

try cycling on wet roads. it's fun.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1976913 15-Mar-2018 07:02

Batman:

tdgeek:

Batman:

and this is how easy it is to slip on a road bike

You make it look like every trip is a fall. if the guy runs his front tyre on an grill edge thats a bit dumb

try cycling on wet roads. it's fun.

I have and motorcycle as well. Metal grills arent a great idea to rode over

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1977112 15-Mar-2018 12:49

Linuxluver:

I went to school with a kid who went over the handle bars without a helmet.

He wishes he'd worn a helmet. The brain injury he sustained has ruined his life.....

That's sad.

Listening a bit more to some of the advocates for change interviews the main issue seems to be choice, or at least a revisit to the blanket law. For example racing down the street or bike path is completely different risk to idly cruising through a park at walking speed, yet both are treated equally in the eyes of the law. I don't have the citation but it is claimed than walkers and runners suffer just as many head injuries, some with terrible consequences like this kid. Should they wear helmets? Head injuries in car crashes are also prevalent, should drivers in cars without curtain airbags also wear helmets? after all race car drivers do.

It's an interesting argument if the law was truly about managing risk, but then enforcing it becomes infinitely more difficult.

If it wasn't compulsory I would still always wear a helmet when I am biking proper, but I don't think I would if I was simply dawdling to the park with my kid at walking pace along the shared path. I'm probably at more risk of tripping down the stairs on my way out of the house.

Too much unreasonable bubble wrap and cotton wool in this society.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1977158 15-Mar-2018 13:06

tdgeek:
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.

Because your view is one dimensional and you focus solely on the risk side of the equation.

To compare helmets against seatbelts is ridiculous because a helmet is different to a seatbelt just as a bike is different to a car. The only similarity is both provide protection and clearly with the number of road deaths in cars perhaps people should wear helmets in cars while driving.

Do you need to carry a seatbelt with you? Does it take longer to put on a cycle helmet? Can you easily store a bike helmet like a seatbelt? Are cycle helmets physically attached to the bike and can't be lost? In all ways a helmet is inconvenient compared to a seatbelt.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1977162 15-Mar-2018 13:19

scuwp:

Linuxluver:

I went to school with a kid who went over the handle bars without a helmet.

He wishes he'd worn a helmet. The brain injury he sustained has ruined his life.....

That's sad.

Listening a bit more to some of the advocates for change interviews the main issue seems to be choice, or at least a revisit to the blanket law. For example racing down the street or bike path is completely different risk to idly cruising through a park at walking speed, yet both are treated equally in the eyes of the law. I don't have the citation but it is claimed than walkers and runners suffer just as many head injuries, some with terrible consequences like this kid. Should they wear helmets? Head injuries in car crashes are also prevalent, should drivers in cars without curtain airbags also wear helmets? after all race car drivers do.

It's an interesting argument if the law was truly about managing risk, but then enforcing it becomes infinitely more difficult.

If it wasn't compulsory I would still always wear a helmet when I am biking proper, but I don't think I would if I was simply dawdling to the park with my kid at walking pace along the shared path. I'm probably at more risk of tripping down the stairs on my way out of the house.

Too much unreasonable bubble wrap and cotton wool in this society.

I dont think anyone has an issue with park dawdling, but they anti brigade on the articles are getting all lobbyist and heavy handed, they seem to want blanket optional

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1977164 15-Mar-2018 13:24

surfisup1000:
tdgeek:

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.

Because your view is one dimensional and you focus solely on the risk side of the equation.

To compare helmets against seatbelts is ridiculous because a helmet is different to a seatbelt just as a bike is different to a car. The only similarity is both provide protection and clearly with the number of road deaths in cars perhaps people should wear helmets in cars while driving.

Do you need to carry a seatbelt with you? Does it take longer to put on a cycle helmet? Can you easily store a bike helmet like a seatbelt? Are cycle helmets physically attached to the bike and can't be lost? In all ways a helmet is inconvenient compared to a seatbelt.

One dimensional? Standard negative forum reply. That is YOUR opinion it is not fact

Focus solely on the risk? OBVIOUSLY

If a cycle helmet is that much of a pain, don't wear one. The motorcycle brigade has no issue and they ARE inconvenient

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1977167 15-Mar-2018 13:27

I am not totally against compulsion btw... I just don't think the research proves a greater overall benefit.

Certainly compulsion has raised awareness of cycling and head injury risk so has been good from an education perspective.

We really have bigger issues than changing helmet laws.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 22