Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#230783 13-Mar-2018 07:10

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.

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

9241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973707 13-Mar-2018 07:44

Pay for your own hospital visit if you're seriously injured and you weren't wearing one? Of course, people will complain about that too...

Edit: Actually, that (and the whole rule) are a bit arbitrary now that I'm thinking about it; the rest of your body will still get injured! In any case, I wore one before the law first came in, and I don't see any real reason to not wear one.

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

scuwp

3761 posts

Uber Geek

#1973708 13-Mar-2018 07:48

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.

It's a difficult decision but don't get the feeling the Govt. has any appetite for change in this PC risk adverse world we now live in.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - Robert J Hanlon

gcorgnet

1056 posts

Uber Geek

#1973709 13-Mar-2018 07:49

For most issues, I'd tend to be pro-choice, in that case as well. Maybe a case of having it mandatory for children?

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973711 13-Mar-2018 07:55

They say it doesn't help fatalities, then they say the cycle till is 1.5% of the road toll. Now, annecdotally, I'd suggest the ratio of cyclists to cars is a lot less than 70:1 , i.e. there are less than 1 cyclists per 70 cars, which makes the cycle toll higher per person than driving

gcorgnet

1056 posts

Uber Geek

#1973712 13-Mar-2018 07:58

Although, like I said, I am for having a choice, I can't be convinced that having to wear a helmet would put people off cycling. If we are talking about commuting, what about the fact that not everyone has access to a shower at work? Or that people have to carry a load which is too heavy to put on the bike? Or that they just like the convenience to be swing by the shop on the way back from work?

To me these would be reason not to ride. Helmets? I don't see it...

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973713 13-Mar-2018 07:59

gcorgnet:

For most issues, I'd tend to be pro-choice, in that case as well. Maybe a case of having it mandatory for children?

Why children? because their life is more valuable than an adults? I dont think so. While a kid is less experienced, they will be lower risk than an adult who rides further and rides more in heavier traffic areas. If riding a cycle on a road doesnt need a helmet you can argue that motorcyclists riding in 50k areas don't need one either. Riding in the traffic flow is safer than riding beside the faster traffic flow

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973714 13-Mar-2018 08:01

gcorgnet:

Although, like I said, I am for having a choice, I can't be convinced that having to wear a helmet would put people off cycling. If we are talking about commuting, what about the fact that not everyone has access to a shower at work? Or that people have to carry a load which is too heavy to put on the bike? Or that they just like the convenience to be swing by the shop on the way back from work?

To me these would be reason not to ride. Helmets? I don't see it...

Agree, if you ride as it's healthier, more enjoyable, no parking fuss, I can't see how a having to use a helmet will put anyone off.

gcorgnet

1056 posts

Uber Geek

#1973715 13-Mar-2018 08:06

tdgeek:

Why children? because their life is more valuable than an adults? I dont think so. While a kid is less experienced, they will be lower risk than an adult who rides further and rides more in heavier traffic areas. If riding a cycle on a road doesnt need a helmet you can argue that motorcyclists riding in 50k areas don't need one either. Riding in the traffic flow is safer than riding beside the faster traffic flow

It was more the fact that children are less experience and, to me, more likely to do random things or crash. I guess we are not talking about cyclists being clipped by cars here. There's also the self-inflicted crash to think about (eg: loss of control, slip on something, etc..) and in my opinion young children are more likely to have that happen.

sxz

751 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1973717 13-Mar-2018 08:10

I think it should be optional for adults.

I ride to work most days, and would continue wearing a helmet on my commute. I think there are too many idiots on the road not to.

But when I'm cruising up the beach, or the park, or on a quiet trail, there is just no need for me to wear a helmet. I am no more likely to fall off or have a collision than any pedestrian would - and pedestrian's don't have to wear helmets.

The argument that cyclists without helmets are more likely to get hurt, so should pay their own medical costs, is just plain dumb. With that logic, all rugby players should pay their own medical costs. And smokers. And fat people. And people who don't exercise.

gzt

15190 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1973718 13-Mar-2018 08:10

I'm not familiar with the debate. Not a regular cyclist for a few years. Fatalities is not the same as head injury.

You would have to be mad not to wear one most of the time in the big city.

That said, if you are riding 8kph on a 'leafy' cycle path and getting off for the crossings I can see the argument for not wearing one. There are many situations nationally where not wearing one is not entirely insane.

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973719 13-Mar-2018 08:11

gcorgnet:

tdgeek:

Why children? because their life is more valuable than an adults? I dont think so. While a kid is less experienced, they will be lower risk than an adult who rides further and rides more in heavier traffic areas. If riding a cycle on a road doesnt need a helmet you can argue that motorcyclists riding in 50k areas don't need one either. Riding in the traffic flow is safer than riding beside the faster traffic flow

It was more the fact that children are less experience and, to me, more likely to do random things or crash. I guess we are not talking about cyclists being clipped by cars here. There's also the self-inflicted crash to think about (eg: loss of control, slip on something, etc..) and in my opinion young children are more likely to have that happen.

Agree, but adults are a high risk. Cars buzzing by, car doors opening, cars not seeing you. When I started riding to work some years ago, what a nightmare. CBD, car doors, buses trying to cut and polish my handlebars as they squeezed me between parked cars. Helmets should remain compulsory except cycleways that are off road, there are many like that where I am, so for exercise, no helmet, but to mix it up with cars and motorbikes, a helmet

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1973721 13-Mar-2018 08:12

gzt: I'm not familiar with the debate. Not a regular cyclist for a few years. Fatalities is not the same as head injury.

You would have to be mad not to wear one most of the time in the big city.

That said, if you are riding 8kph on a 'leafy' cycle path and getting off for the crossings I can see the argument for not wearing one. There are many situations nationally where not wearing one is not entirely insane.

dfnt

1443 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1973722 13-Mar-2018 08:14

A work colleague and a bus collided at speed in Wellington many years ago. If he wasn't wearing a helmet he would've been dead, so I'm all for wearing them.

LookingUp

399 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1973723 13-Mar-2018 08:15

As a cyclist, I totally support the wearing of helmets. I had one "off" where the helmet almost certainly prevented a very nasty head knock. Unlike broken bones, which generally mend, you sometimes only get one shot with a head injury. If they're going to make cycle helmets optional they may as well make car seatbelts optional too. Too many people think that accidents can't happen to them.

Things are LookingUp.... A photo from my back yard :-)

sxz

751 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1973727 13-Mar-2018 08:24

If it's summer, and you are at the beach to get the paper and some milk, and you are riding about 10kmh, there is no need for a helmet. You are at no more risk than a runner. It's daft to be at the discretion of a police officer as to whether or not they fine you.

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