New helmet law?

[NiggleC]

What have I missed? While out in North Canterbury yesterday I saw, on 2 seperate ocassions riders on SH1 riding helmetless. While I would loath to stereotype the riders lets just say both were on bikes, parts of which I am told are actually made in the USA. Do these new laws only apply to riders on these bikes? Maybe they were on their way home from the beach having not seen a tsunami and were looking for another way to remove themselves from the gene pool.

[Mudfart]

from wat ive been told, if they were on trikes that have seatbelts, they dont have to wear helmets.

[Headbanger]

Should have taken a stand and performed a citizens arrest.....

[KelvinAng]

On that day I saw a bloke and a lady pillion rider on a cruiser along the same stretch of road, first tailgating my van and then "zipping" past me along the centre line when I'm doing err, shall we say a positively mis-calibrated 100km/hr (flowing with the traffic and all, I swear!). I slowed down for cruiser to overtake and then he proceed on to do the same thing with the car in front... pillion rider has got no helmet.

[Headbanger]

This reminds me of a BBQ I attended on Sunday, Over a glass of ale I informed the ladies present that fat girls had to be informed of their state so they could do something about it.

[Taz]

This reminds me of a BBQ I attended on Sunday, Over a glass of ale I informed the ladies present that fat girls had to be informed of their state so they could do something about it.

I agree we all have a civic duty to tell fat girls they are fat and not to wear that skimpy clothing :puke:

As for those helmetless bikers - who cares?

[Muppet]

I agree we all have a civic duty to tell fat girls they are fat and not to wear that skimpy clothing :puke:

As for those helmetless bikers - who cares?

Yes who bloody cares, they know the risks, I say let 'em crash! They were probably the same twats who went to the beach to watch the Tsunami come in.

[avgas]

Helmets are only compulsory for brains. If you lack the latter helmet is not required. Its the law

[mazz1972]

This sort of airhead behaviour by does nothing good for the reputation of us sharing caring careful motorcyclists

*hands on hips*

ACC levy increase anyone? *cough cough*

[Pedrostt500]

You can apply for a waiver to wearing a Helmet on medical grounds, though you do need a certificate sighned off by a doctor or surgeon.

[p.dath]

Should have taken a stand and performed a citizens arrest.....

I think it has to be a criminal offence to be able to arrest someone, citizen's or otherwise. I'm guessing not wearing a helmet is probably just a breach of regulations and as such would attract only a fine and some demerits.

[pc220]

They are actually doing a good thing for the ACC campaign. If they bin their chances of death are so much higher and therefore will be less chance of them draining ACC funds. Either that or they are just fucken retards.:stupid:

[davereid]

If they bin their chances of death are so much higher and therefore will be less chance of them draining ACC funds. Either that or they are just fucken retards.:stupid:

Much higher ?

Nope. Helmets improve your chances by about 30%.

Or a multiplier of 1.3 if you like to think of it that way.

Given that riding a motorcycle is 18-35 times more likely to cause you death that going in the car, I'd suggest that riding a motorcycle makes you a Darwin award candidate much more effectively than choosing not to wear a helmet.

[pc220]

Much higher ?

Nope. Helmets improve your chances by about 30%.

Or a multiplier of 1.3 if you like to think of it that way.

Given that riding a motorcycle is 18-35 times more likely to cause you death that going in the car, I'd suggest that riding a motorcycle makes you a Darwin award candidate much more effectively than choosing not to wear a helmet.
Fair point. But a dead motorcyclist is going to be cheaper than one that is seriously injured.The fact they are not wearing a helmet is very possably going to be the differance between death and serious head injuries.(in worst case scenario)

[carver]

I quite like riding without a helmet..

feels more free

I hardly use my one for its purpose anyway

[p.dath]

Much higher ?

Nope. Helmets improve your chances by about 30%.

Or a multiplier of 1.3 if you like to think of it that way.

Given that riding a motorcycle is 18-35 times more likely to cause you death that going in the car, I'd suggest that riding a motorcycle makes you a Darwin award candidate much more effectively than choosing not to wear a helmet.

Allow me to put a different spin on this. A lot of these figures come out of comparing the changes in motorcycle fatality rates from US states that have changed the compulsory use of helmets. Texas is often the most quoted.

Indeed, in Texas the fatality rate INCREASED around 30% to 35% once helmets became "semi" optional. So that means if you had an accident you had an increased risk of dying of 1 in 3. That's pretty bad odds.

Note that a significant portion of riders still chose to ride with helmets. If no one used a helmet can you imagine how much higher that number would have been in Texas? I'm guessing it could have been a 60% to 70% fatality rate.

And remember, this is only fatality accidents. Serious head traumas increased radically as well.

[Mikkel]

Helmets are only compulsory for brains. If you lack the latter helmet is not required. Its the law

Indeed, anyone who actually wants to ride without a helmet should be encourage to do so. Hell, they should be encouraged to speed... excessively.

I'll never get it, little pieces of gravel can be felt quite vividly through your leathers at 100 km/h and they will leave dents in your visor. I just don't understand the appeal of open face helmets - who'd want to risk looking like this (http://www.rotten.com/FAQ/motorcycle-th.jpg)?

[Headbanger]

There once was a time when I could ride without a helmet and experience the wind in my hair, Now I would have to take off my T-Shirt, and having the wind rush through the hair on my back just isn't quite as exhilarating...

[avgas]

There once was a time when I could ride without a helmet and experience the wind in my hair, Now I would have to take off my T-Shirt, and having the wind rush through the hair on my back just isn't quite as exhilarating...
Nor is riding without pants.

[admenk]

Totally agree that wearing a helmet is a good idea. Mind you, I've also met loads of riders who feel the need to tell you how expensive and top of the range their helmet is, only to ride off at suicidal speeds acting like a complete nutter!

[DougB]

We did not have to wear helmets when I started riding in 1952. I hated them when we were forced to wear them but now I realize their value.

[Toaster]

... to arrest someone, citizen's or otherwise.....

It makes me laugh how people watch American TV and apply their laws here based on what they watch. Only police have the authority to arrest or summons under New Zealand criminal law and traffic regulations.

Helmets are required by law - obviously, and this hasn't changed. Those you see not wearing them will likely have a medical exemption (or are just pushing their luck in more ways than one). And before anyone asks, no I am not going to elaborate.

[crazyhorse]

What have I missed? While out in North Canterbury yesterday I saw, on 2 seperate ocassions riders on SH1 riding helmetless. While I would loath to stereotype the riders lets just say both were on bikes, parts of which I am told are actually made in the USA. Do these new laws only apply to riders on these bikes? Maybe they were on their way home from the beach having not seen a tsunami and were looking for another way to remove themselves from the gene pool.

No! they have just lost their brain somewhere :rofl:

[davereid]

Only police have the authority to arrest or summons under New Zealand criminal law and traffic regulations..

Nope, not true.

In fact, for many years police had no special powers at all, they just had the same right of arrest as all other citizens. Effectively, police and private citizens can arrest without warrant, using the minimum force necessary, any person committing a crime with a penalty of 3 or more years in jail.

The bar was lowered for police, and some other government officials (like fisheries officers), who can now arrest you for offences that would not see you locked up. (Such as obstruction.)

Those powers of arrest for private citizens still exist.

Additionally, you can arrest if asked to do so by a policeman, and there is no requirement for the policeman to be there.

For example, a security guard may advise police of a crime on via radio, and be asked to assist by police who are not yet on the scene.

New Zealand Law : (From Wikipedia)

Some legal protection exists to those making a citizen's arrest as provided in the Crimes Act 1961 in that there may be justification or protection from criminal responsibility. Justification of the arrest ensures the arresting person is not guilty of an offence and are not liable to any civil proceeding. Protection from criminal responsibility means those who make the arrest are not liable to any criminal proceedings. They are however liable for civil proceedings. The legislation is carefully worded and only applies for offences covered in the Crimes Act 1961, not other offences such as those covered in the Summary Offences Act 1981.[16]

Specifically, the Crimes Act 1961 states that everyone (not just New Zealand citizens) is justified in arresting without warrant:[17]
Any person found committing any offence against the Act which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years' imprisonment; or
Any person found at night committing any offence against the Act.

Other situations where members of the public are protected from criminal responsibility when involved in arresting where:
They have been asked by a police officer to help arrest any person believed or suspected to have committed any offence unless they know that there is no reasonable ground for the belief or suspicion.[16][18]
They witnesses a breach of the peace, and therefore are justified in interfering to prevent its continuance or renewal, and may detain any person committing it, in order to hand them over to a Police Officer provided that the person interfering does not use more force than is reasonably necessary for preventing the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace, or than is reasonably proportionate to the danger to be apprehended from its continuance or renewal.[19] Similar legislation applies to suppressions of riots by members of the public.[20]
They believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, someone has committed an offence against the Crimes Act 1961 and is fleeing and is being pursued by any one they believe can arrest that person for the offence (such as a police officer). This applies whether or not the offence has in fact been committed, and whether or not the arrested person committed it.

[Toaster]

Nope, not true.

Well I stand corrected. Clearly the memory loss since banging my head is more than I realised! Cheers!