Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 22
3469 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1061


  Reply # 1977175 15-Mar-2018 13:35
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

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



Umm u don't have a choice because it is the law...you don't give any thought to the benefits of having optional helmet laws and you make invalid comparisons to seatbelts.

Although I do notice that a lot of people in my neighbourhood ignore helmet laws... Our streets are pretty quiet although I would definitely wear a helmet on busy arterials.



11662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2006

Trusted

  Reply # 1977178 15-Mar-2018 13:38
Send private message quote this post

surfisup1000: 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.

 

I agree

 

The risk though was already known as people and kids moved away from riding in traffic but these extremists say that cycles have decreased due to the helmet law. 

 

The uses decreased due to traffic danger, the 1994 law just happened to be in that time, a bit after actually. Cycles sales have continued to grow though, as people ride elsewhere. These idiots know that, a simple Google shows it. Instead of being extremist and ranting they should suggest to the Govt to make non road/streets optional, so that park dawdling is more enjoyable. That's sensible. Park dawdling is a risk, as are pedestrians there, but its about drawing a sensible line


 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software


11662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2006

Trusted

  Reply # 1977179 15-Mar-2018 13:42
Send private message quote this post

surfisup1000:
tdgeek:

 

 

 



Umm u don't have a choice because it is the law...you don't give any thought to the benefits of having optional helmet laws and you make invalid comparisons to seatbelts.

Although I do notice that a lot of people in my neighbourhood ignore helmet laws... Our streets are pretty quiet although I would definitely wear a helmet on busy arterials.

 

You do have a choice apparently 8% dont wear cycle helmets

 

A cycle helmet is hardly a PITB, but I also support non road optionality, i.e,. where there are no cars. I mentioned seatbelts as the same level of inconvenience, minimal.




11662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2006

Trusted

  Reply # 1977186 15-Mar-2018 14:03
Send private message quote this post

In short, people dont always make the right and safe decisions, so laws cover that. It helps ACC funding as well. In this particular issue, there is a case for optional wearing if riders are away from traffic, more so now that cycleways amd health  riding is becoming really popular. That is still a risk, but in life risks are everywhere, its about a sensible approach. Hence no helmets in a park and no helmets in a car


3469 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1061


  Reply # 1977191 15-Mar-2018 14:20
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

In short, people dont always make the right and safe decisions, so laws cover that. It helps ACC funding as well. In this particular issue, there is a case for optional wearing if riders are away from traffic, more so now that cycleways amd health  riding is becoming really popular. That is still a risk, but in life risks are everywhere, its about a sensible approach. Hence no helmets in a park and no helmets in a car

 

 

It will be interesting to see if anything changes. 

 

A friend of ours was run over by a truck  before helmet laws were made compulsory -- she was wearing a helmet which was a bit unusual for that time and she survived, her vivid memory was of the helmet bouncing against undercarriage of the truck as it went over her. She would be probably be gone if not wearing the helmet, so I certainly recognise they save lives in crashes. 


Mad Scientist
18123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2284

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1977206 15-Mar-2018 14:37
Send private message quote this post

A helmet definitely saves you in some circumstances, and definitely does absolutely nothing in other circumstances.

 

By all means wear a seat belt. But a range rover that crashed head on vs a big truck last year had all the occupants killed. Does it mean there is no evidence for seat belt? Some people could have you think that.


3989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1574


  Reply # 1977208 15-Mar-2018 14:39
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

surfisup1000: 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.

 

In the report linked to in an earlier post, the lion's share of hospital stay due to bike accidents are attributed to non-traffic accidents.  If this represent off-road accidents then this suggests that off-road (lowest incidence of helmet wearing is riskier and that couldd be seen as evidence of the increased risk of not wearing a helmet.  A lot of ifs there but it could be evidence.

 

 





Mike



11662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2006

Trusted

  Reply # 1977210 15-Mar-2018 14:41
Send private message quote this post

Batman:

 

A helmet definitely saves you in some circumstances, and definitely does absolutely nothing in other circumstances.

 

By all means wear a seat belt. But a range rover that crashed head on vs a big truck last year had all the occupants killed. Does it mean there is no evidence for seat belt? Some people could have you think that.

 

 

Thats the problem when conflict of interest is involved. There is a case for some optionality, but instead of being put forward sensibly its been a lobbyist movement cherry picking data to suit


2259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1078


  Reply # 1977211 15-Mar-2018 14:44
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

... but they anti brigade on the articles are getting all lobbyist and heavy handed, they seem to want blanket optional  

 

 

And, in this, they are no different from the pro brigade, except that the pro brigade want it mandatory.

 

 




11662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2006

Trusted

  Reply # 1977212 15-Mar-2018 14:50
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

tdgeek:

 

... but they anti brigade on the articles are getting all lobbyist and heavy handed, they seem to want blanket optional  

 

 

And, in this, they are no different from the pro brigade, except that the pro brigade want it mandatory.

 

 

 

 

The pro brigade isn't protesting nor fudging figures, such as the sales of bikes are reducing ever since 1994 which is incorrect. Most support optional in parks etc, where no cars and trucks and open doors are whizzing by, which is what caused a downturn in commuting, and younger kids prior to 1994. But facts often make it boring


2259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1078


  Reply # 1977213 15-Mar-2018 14:55
Send private message quote this post

 

Focus solely on the risk? OBVIOUSLY

 

 

Please explain how focussing on only one side of the equation is a good idea. It's not obvious to me. Not even if you shout the word "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

 

 

You've questioned the motorcycle brigade about this? Or is this some random preconception you're touting as fact?

 

In many countries, motorcycle helmet-wearing is not mandated, and motorcyclists there don't all wear helmets. This suggests that only some motorcyclists think helmets are a good idea all the time, and that the rest sometimes wear helmets only to avoid getting ticketed.

 

 


Mad Scientist
18123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2284

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1977214 15-Mar-2018 14:56
Send private message quote this post

Trouble is, if you go and google "bike park" images, go on.

 

Tell me, in the first 100 pictures, which park would you not wear a helmet on? Kids and young adults can't tell which is safe or not.

 

For me, I can't guarantee that I won't fall off and hit your head, or that I won't venture beyond where not wearing a helmet is unsafe. On the contrary, In gathering large population data, it is possible that there is no increase in people being maimed where helmets are not compulsory. Not sure how that works, maybe those people never fall off their bikes onto their heads.

 

Also, I gather helmet is optional in skiing, something that I've discovered is definitely unsafe without a helmet!


2259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1078


  Reply # 1977216 15-Mar-2018 15:13
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

... they should suggest to the Govt to make non road/streets optional, so that park dawdling is more enjoyable. That's sensible.

 

 

Ummm... isn't it illegal to ride a bicycle on a footpath? So park-dawdling par bicyclette is not allowed, so it makes no sense to legalise helmet-free whilst riding in the park.

 

Personally, I think it's better for children to cycle on footpaths rather than roads (with or without helmets).

 

And the real answer to cycle safety is cycle lanes separate from motorised traffic, not largely-ineffectual helmets. (Incidentally, years ago when I lived there, in Switzerland mopeds were allowed to use cycle lanes. I think that on balance this is a good idea, but perhaps superceded by e-bikes?)

 

 




11662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2006

Trusted

  Reply # 1977219 15-Mar-2018 15:21
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

 

Focus solely on the risk? OBVIOUSLY

 

 

Please explain how focussing on only one side of the equation is a good idea. It's not obvious to me. Not even if you shout the word "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

 

 

You've questioned the motorcycle brigade about this? Or is this some random preconception you're touting as fact?

 

In many countries, motorcycle helmet-wearing is not mandated, and motorcyclists there don't all wear helmets. This suggests that only some motorcyclists think helmets are a good idea all the time, and that the rest sometimes wear helmets only to avoid getting ticketed.

 

 

 

 

Focusing on risk is the only reason helmets are mandatory. Safety compared to wearing a helmet is to me, one major benefit with a very minimal downside

 

I am part of the motorcycle brigade, so I know a helmet is inconvenient, but the benefit far outweighs the inconvenience. Motorbikes have far more deaths/injuries that cycles as they go faster. Cycles have far more deaths/injuries than cars even though they travel much slower (per hours ridden) So they are risky. Helmets are sensible and they do work . If some cycling is in lower risk areas, optional is sensible, its manageable.

 

As to motorbikes having optional helmets, that's lunacy IMHO. At the very least you will come off at 50kph, and unlike a cycle you cant just put your hands out and end up with grazed hands and elbows and knees

 

It will never happen to me though, that's the problem. It depends of all the risks all of us face each day, where is a sensible line to draw?

 

 


2259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1078


  Reply # 1977221 15-Mar-2018 15:24
Send private message quote this post

Batman:

 

Also, I gather helmet is optional in skiing, something that I've discovered is definitely unsafe without a helmet!

 

 

I've noticed the trend towards helmet-wearing whilst skiing. For my part, I don't recall having a skiing mishap where a helmet would have made any difference.

 

(And,in case no-one else thinks of it, I'll throw in the punchline: Of course, if I was wearing a helmet that time, I would have remembered the mishap).

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 22
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Opera launches new mobile browser: Opera Touch
Posted 25-Apr-2018 20:45


TCF and Telcos Toughen Up on Scam Callers
Posted 23-Apr-2018 09:39


Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.