Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1983393 26-Mar-2018 12:48

Rikkitic:

The point (pardon the pun) is that you are making a choice to wear a helmet. I am being denied a choice not to. You have the choice, I do not. That is what is being objected to.

And the other issue is that cyclists are being forced to share the road with motorists. And then being made to buy & wear helmets (which are extremely unlikely to be of any help) to protect themselves from the actions of the motorists.

MightyApe

You will find anything you want at MightyApe (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18123 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1983398 26-Mar-2018 12:56

Rikkitic:

The point (pardon the pun) is that you are making a choice to wear a helmet. I am being denied a choice not to. You have the choice, I do not. That is what is being objected to.

Do you wear a seat belt in a car?

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1983440 26-Mar-2018 13:50

If you were welding yourself a new steel trailer frame, would you wear welding goggles?

(Unlike the seatbelt analogy) there are no laws that require you to wear goggles while welding, but people do it because we know the risks and consequences of not doing it - blindness. If the government passed a law requiring goggles to be worn when operating a welding machine, would people complain that wearing goggles was interfering with their enjoyment of welding? Would groups gather in Wellington's Civic Square to hold mass "weld without goggles" sessions to protest that goggle legislation was reducing the number of people wanting to weld?

Probably not. But heaven forbid that the government legislate that preventing brain injury, or death, is more important that feeling the wind in your hair. Because, by God, the government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not force you to spend the afternoon with a less than optimal hair style. If the wind in your hair is an actual problem, maybe you just need a helmet with better vents?

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#1983481 26-Mar-2018 14:24

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

Condoms provide protection, but condom laws probably wouldn't be good.

We have a condom law - for the sex industry.

...since when is riding a bicycle to the corner store an "industry".

I didn't claim it is an industry. Just replying to your observation that condom laws wouldn't be good. (A) We have had one (separate from H&S legislation) since 2003 and (B) it seems a good piece of law in the context in which it applies.

Or are you arguing that only safety risks arising form commercial activity should be regulated? I'm not really following ...

Mike

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#1983491 26-Mar-2018 14:32

stuartmac:

The current cycling environment - of which mandatory helmet laws part of - reduce cycling participation to only athletic or risk-taking individuals. This means primarily young or middle-age males.

Most skateboarders are from the same demographic. I wonder if this also relates to appetite for risk?

Mike

Geektastic

17689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983524 26-Mar-2018 15:00

Fred99:

PhantomNVD:
Dulouz:

@PhantomNVD whether or not helmets can provide protection and whether or not helmet laws are a good idea are two separate issues. The title of this thread is misleading because the real issue is with helmet laws not if people should wear helmets when riding in high-risk situations.

So if we agree helmets provide protection, how can helmet laws NOT be good?

Condoms provide protection, but condom laws probably wouldn't be good.

I'm not sure they wouldn't be good, but certainly enforcement would be tricky...!

Inphinity

2759 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1983570 26-Mar-2018 15:46

I have no issue with helmets being optional, as long as the cost of any head injury as a result of not wearing one is not worn by the public health system which is already underfunded.

stevenz

2800 posts

Uber Geek

#1983574 26-Mar-2018 15:54

Not cycling, but you get the idea;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

@KnightNZ

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1983583 26-Mar-2018 16:05

andrew027:

If you were welding yourself a new steel trailer frame, would you wear welding goggles?

(Unlike the seatbelt analogy) there are no laws that require you to wear goggles while welding, but people do it because we know the risks and consequences of not doing it - blindness. If the government passed a law requiring goggles to be worn when operating a welding machine, would people complain that wearing goggles was interfering with their enjoyment of welding? Would groups gather in Wellington's Civic Square to hold mass "weld without goggles" sessions to protest that goggle legislation was reducing the number of people wanting to weld?

Probably not. But heaven forbid that the government legislate that preventing brain injury, or death, is more important that feeling the wind in your hair. Because, by God, the government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not force you to spend the afternoon with a less than optimal hair style. If the wind in your hair is an actual problem, maybe you just need a helmet with better vents?

That's a pretty poor analogy. People quite rightly recognise that blindness is a likely (if not inescapable) consequence of welding without goggles. And people also quite rightly recognise that head injury is NOT a likely consequence of cycling without a helmet.

How about we legislate that people who drink alcohol should wear helmets? Without looking at the stats, I'd guess it would be of the same order of efficacy as cyclists wearing helmets.

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1983584 26-Mar-2018 16:08

stevenz:

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If accidents are rarely the fault of the rider, why should the rider have to pay for head injuries caused by someone else?

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#1983611 26-Mar-2018 16:25

frankv:

stevenz:

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If accidents are rarely the fault of the rider, why should the rider have to pay for head injuries caused by someone else?

the lions share of hospital stays (see report referenced early in this thread) come from 'non-traffic accidents'. Those are the fault of the rider.

Mike

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1983632 26-Mar-2018 16:40

MikeAqua:

frankv:

stevenz:

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If accidents are rarely the fault of the rider, why should the rider have to pay for head injuries caused by someone else?

the lions share of hospital stays (see report referenced early in this thread) come from 'non-traffic accidents'. Those are the fault of the rider.

Right... from NZTA fact sheet on cycling:

The total number of days stay in hospital by cyclists in 2016 was 817 from crashes involving motor

vehicles, 1,724 from traffic incidents not involving a motor vehicle and 2,055 from non-traffic incidents.

I suspect a lot of those non-traffic accidents were mountain-biking. Maybe mountain-bikers (and skiers and rugby players and anyone else not permanently bubblewrapped) should be made to pay their own hospital costs.

sxz

751 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1983638 26-Mar-2018 16:54

stevenz:

Not cycling, but you get the idea;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If you follow your logic, then most rugby players should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment.

stuartmac

59 posts

Master Geek

#1983767 26-Mar-2018 19:46

The end-game is a safe cycling environment. If we had that - as european countries have - then mandatory helmets would be unnecessary on many shared transport streets e.g. non-arterial roads with a 30 km/hr speed limit (which all of Wellington CBD already is).

Many contributors seem gob-smacked at the thought that cycling could be safe in any circumstances. Urban cycling needs to become a normal everyday activity. Then we gain the benefits (to all, including drivers and taxpayers) of reduced congestion and healthy lifestyles.

The mandatory helmet laws are being used as an excuse for inaction and denial.

tdgeek

28589 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983790 26-Mar-2018 20:27

frankv:

andrew027:

If you were welding yourself a new steel trailer frame, would you wear welding goggles?

(Unlike the seatbelt analogy) there are no laws that require you to wear goggles while welding, but people do it because we know the risks and consequences of not doing it - blindness. If the government passed a law requiring goggles to be worn when operating a welding machine, would people complain that wearing goggles was interfering with their enjoyment of welding? Would groups gather in Wellington's Civic Square to hold mass "weld without goggles" sessions to protest that goggle legislation was reducing the number of people wanting to weld?

Probably not. But heaven forbid that the government legislate that preventing brain injury, or death, is more important that feeling the wind in your hair. Because, by God, the government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not force you to spend the afternoon with a less than optimal hair style. If the wind in your hair is an actual problem, maybe you just need a helmet with better vents?

That's a pretty poor analogy. People quite rightly recognise that blindness is a likely (if not inescapable) consequence of welding without goggles. And people also quite rightly recognise that head injury is NOT a likely consequence of cycling without a helmet.

How about we legislate that people who drink alcohol should wear helmets? Without looking at the stats, I'd guess it would be of the same order of efficacy as cyclists wearing helmets.

Drinking alcohol is a really poor analogy. Saying "rightly recognise that head injury is NOT a likely consequence of cycling without a helmet" is a little bizarre.

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22