Cyclists wanting to get rid of compulsory helmet wearing

[PrincessBandit]

They are saying it puts people off going for a casual ride.

Somehow I don't think it would go down too well with tptb if motorcyclists came at that. (They're not impressed with the cyclists, so I think it is safe to say that the preceding sentence is true...)

[yachtie10]

I agree its over the top and should be removed

[Cayman911]

haha i've never worn a helmet on a bicycle before. no one's bothered me about it... well until the bike got stolen..

[Ocean1]

The old dear next door won't have a bar of it, still trundles around the neighbourhood lidless.

Sod 'em, she says, who's bloody 'ead is it.

We get on famously.

[Big Dave]

It's true - Having to put the dorky thing on stops me riding as much as I would otherwise.

[Chooky]

Yer, I dont wear mine much now... but then I'm not a racer, I just go for a casual ride down the road and through the park.
If the cops want to chase me... game on..:Police::laugh:

[Grasshopperus]

I agree its over the top and should be removed

Are you being serious or is that the worst pun-of-the-day?

[Big Dave]

Are you being serious or is that the worst pun-of-the-day?

I take my hat off often to that observation.

Possibly trousers.

[Wannabiker]

I used to think bicycle helmets were a waste of time too...until I had an off at the mountainbike nationals in Rotorua and put a crack through the front of my helmet...... I didnt even realise my head had hit the ground.

I tried to break the helmet completely by jumping up and down on it after the race, but struggled to do any further damage, as the polystyrene had a kevlar band around the circumfrence which held it all together. It must have been a pretty good impact to split it!!!

I have had many bicycle crashes over the years, including getting bowled by cars, most of which were before the time of compulsory helmets. (when I started road racing we wore the leather banana helmets). It must have been luck that I had avoided a serious head injury.

Lets just say...I wouldnt ride without one now. They are not expensive (in relative terms). Most people wouldnt worry about buying a $200. pair of running shoes, but wouldnt put a $50 value on their head.

[YellowDog]

Cycling = A highly dangerous and unregulated sport/pass-time.

No training or licence required.

Some do take it seriously and get let down by many whom do not.

[imdying]

Doesn't bother me... so long as they're prepared to register them and pay their ACC component.

[PrincessBandit]

Doesn't bother me... so long as they're prepared to register them and pay their ACC component.

Eggsackery.

[Wannabiker]

3 bikes over 600cc and 2 cars chould cover me for ACC for the 8km pushbike ride to work and back.....Yes...all those vehicles and I ride a pushbike to work....(when its not raining, windy, or I have too musc stuff to take to work)...so I ride 2x a month at the moment!!:yes:

Plus the ACC component I pay in my employer levy, and the ACC component in the petrol I put in my vehicles......

[yachtie10]

Are you being serious or is that the worst pun-of-the-day?

Im a poet and didnt know it

[marty]

Cycling = A highly dangerous and unregulated sport/pass-time.

No training or licence required.

Some do take it seriously and get let down by many whom do not.

A bit like riding a motorbike then?

[Woodman]

Now come on, let the cyclists do what they want. Cyclists are perfect in every way .
They shouldn't have to follow the law and should be able to do whatever they want on the road even though they contribute nothing towards it as cyclists.
I actually feel inferior to these paragons of perfectness every time I use the road in my car or on my motorbike.

[Devil]

They are saying it puts people off going for a casual ride.

Somehow I don't think it would go down too well with tptb if motorcyclists came at that. (They're not impressed with the cyclists, so I think it is safe to say that the preceding sentence is true...)

Got a reference?

I dont think people realise how easy it is to get a serious head injury, even from a stationary fall. My old boss fell off his mountainbike at low speed. He had his helmet on but not done up. Took over a year till he was all there again.

[onearmedbandit]

I love cyclists. They get upset quite easily. Like when they are leaning against your car at the lights, and while they're not looking you jolt your car forward. Take the hint buddy.

[Woodman]

I love cyclists. They get upset quite easily. Like when they are leaning against your car at the lights, and while they're not looking you jolt your car forward. Take the hint buddy.

Haha good work.

Drove into nelson the other week and one cyclists went round a car at a red light and cut in front of cars on the green, then a few minutes down the road a bunch of flouro racers were riding on the wrong side of the road in the car lane. And you can bet your ass if any of them got hit by a car they would take the moral high ground and the car driver would be to blame.

Also there was another incident here recently where 2 cyclists ran into a pedestrian on a footpath and the Police said that it was just one of those things and no charges were laid.

They are really starting to piss me off

[Berries]

Used to commute by push bike in the UK. Good for wheelies and general anti social behaviour. In 14 years in NZ I have never ridden one, purely due to the helmet law. I wouldn't ride a motorbike without one, but I wouldn't ride a push bike with one.

[onearmedbandit]

Haha good work.

Drove into nelson the other week and one cyclists went round a car at a red light and cut in front of cars on the green, then a few minutes down the road a bunch of flouro racers were riding on the wrong side of the road in the car lane. And you can bet your ass if any of them got hit by a car they would take the moral high ground and the car driver would be to blame.

Also there was another incident here recently where 2 cyclists ran into a pedestrian on a footpath and the Police said that it was just one of those things and no charges were laid.

They are really starting to piss me off

Girlfriend and I saw a good one not too long ago. We were in the car coming up Riccarton Rd (very busy road both vehicles and pedestrians) slowing for a red light at the T intersection at Matipo St. Cyclist wearing all the gear comes flying up the inside with no intention of stopping for the red light, until at the very last moment a group of pedestrians start to cross on the green crossing signal. The cyclist hit the front brakes and flipped over the bars, landing on a couple of the pedestrians. Oh how I laughed.

[Brian d marge]

I used to think bicycle helmets were a waste of time too...until I had an off at the mountainbike nationals in Rotorua and put a crack through the front of my helmet...... I didnt even realise my head had hit the ground.

I tried to break the helmet completely by jumping up and down on it after the race, but struggled to do any further damage, as the polystyrene had a kevlar band around the circumfrence which held it all together. It must have been a pretty good impact to split it!!!

I have had many bicycle crashes over the years, including getting bowled by cars, most of which were before the time of compulsory helmets. (when I started road racing we wore the leather banana helmets). It must have been luck that I had avoided a serious head injury.

Lets just say...I wouldnt ride without one now. They are not expensive (in relative terms). Most people wouldnt worry about buying a $200. pair of running shoes, but wouldnt put a $50 value on their head.

+12

low speed crashes hurt , I cycle a lot and haven't had the miss( sic) fortune of hitting my head .( I do that on motorcycles , hand stand on a garelli when working in Greece , over we went , big ouchy)

On saying that i cycle here in Tokyo 13 km each way , and no helmet ( well theres nothing to protect , no not even a cod piece , it broke years ago when i pulled it to hard)

the key is separating all forms of transport , cars and mc , bikes , the shanks pony

oh and shpandex i just luv Spandex

Stephen

[awayatc]

Used to commute by push bike in the UK. Good for wheelies and general anti social behaviour. In 14 years in NZ I have never ridden one, purely due to the helmet law. I wouldn't ride a motorbike without one, but I wouldn't ride a push bike with one.

same for me.
I grew up in Holland where everybody goes on pushbikes everywhere.
Never touched a pushbike in NZ since that helmet law came in.
If I have to put on a helmet I grab the motorbike.....

[Genie]

Was just discussing this topic yesterday. When the law came in to wear helmets I was ridng all of the show with my son in a little child seat on the back....I swore I'd never wear a helmet! What happened....we got knocked off by some derranged pervert and my sons' helmet prevented ...God knows what, but the helmet did not survive???


I wear one almost every time I ride my pushbike, especially with the Doberman running along side, the only time I don't is when i'm doing a quick dash up the Railway Reserve.

The roads are a lot busier than 15 years ago when the law came in and I think they should keep it law. It maybe 'your' head but who pays the bills should you be brain damaged for life - doesn't make sense when a $50 dollar helmet can save you.

and really, who cares about hemet hair!

[Pixie]

I used to think bicycle helmets were a waste of time too...until I had an off at the mountainbike nationals in Rotorua and put a crack through the front of my helmet...... I didnt even realise my head had hit the ground.

I tried to break the helmet completely by jumping up and down on it after the race, but struggled to do any further damage, as the polystyrene had a kevlar band around the circumfrence which held it all together. It must have been a pretty good impact to split it!!!

I have had many bicycle crashes over the years, including getting bowled by cars, most of which were before the time of compulsory helmets. (when I started road racing we wore the leather banana helmets). It must have been luck that I had avoided a serious head injury.

Lets just say...I wouldnt ride without one now. They are not expensive (in relative terms). Most people wouldnt worry about buying a $200. pair of running shoes, but wouldnt put a $50 value on their head.

The problem with cycle helmets is that they are designed to protect the front of the head and give little protection to the side of the head.
Why is this a problem?
Well,the skull is very good at protecting the brain from a face plant at low speeds.It has evolved that way as cavemen usually fall over this way.
Usually due to not paying attention to where they are walking and tripping -they might be distracted by a hot cavechick,f'rinstance.
Hit the side of the head with a helmet on,like you would falling sideways off a bike and you are rooted,because cycle helmets don't cover this kind of impact.

[Swoop]

I'm all for letting the lycra-louts' lose their helmets.
It simply allows Mr Darwin to cull the crop a lot faster. Hopefully those who like to ride in large groups will be culled at a lot faster rate.

[ckai]

See I thought the law was changed on the down low that said only under 16's or something are required to wear helmets by law? Everyone else isn't worth saving if they don't wanna be saved :whistle:


I have had many bicycle crashes over the years, including getting bowled by cars, most of which were before the time of compulsory helmets. (when I started road racing we wore the leather banana helmets). It must have been luck that I had avoided a serious head injury.

hahah shit I remember those. God you looked like a muppet with one of those things on. I used to like wearing the old man's one with goggles and jump in the peddle car pretending I was a pilot.

Ahh good times.


I love cyclists. They get upset quite easily. Like when they are leaning against your car at the lights, and while they're not looking you jolt your car forward. Take the hint buddy.

What the fuck has happened to the world and everyone's lack of respect!!!!??? Is it your car? No! So don't fucken touch it unless you ask. Touch their bikes and see what they say!

Shit, I don't even look at good friends $5k + racing bikes without asking. Simple respect.

But moving on. I don't ride without my lid. Doesn't matter what 2 wheels I ride. My choice my brain. Don't wear a lid, don't expect $1mill to fund your "get taught to chew again" sessions.

It's like doing a snowsport without a helmet. Your choice, but you can't complain when the shit hits the fan. They're not even compulsory but god it's saved me I don't know how many times. That's after all my buddies said I was a moron for not having one.

[aprilia_RS250]

I once saw the tension cyclists experience with cars and vice versa. I was behind a car who was behind a wonna be Lance Armstrong on Tamaki drive. Old bugger he was, probably still running off the viagra from the night before. Anyway he was right in the middle of the lane, and was doing about 25kmh. The car in front was getting extremely anxious. The guy sat on the horn for a whole min, Lance moved far over to the left and the guy in the car pulls up right next to him and I assume starts yelling abuse. Then Lance proceeds with ignoring him and grabs his drink bottle and squirts inside the car, funniest shit I saw. Then I see a half eaten apple flying out and hitting Lance's head, but Lance was smart enough to wear a helmet!

[MSTRS]

Bring back Jumping Jacks, Mighty Cannons and Double Happy's...

[jim.cox]

Where other people are not involved, Compulsary anything is a bad idea

Its a small jump from Foam Hairnets to Six Pointed Yellow Stars IMHO

[onearmedbandit]

Compulsary ANYTHING is a bad idea

Its a small jump from Foam Hairnets to Six Pointed Yellow Stars IMHO

Compulsory seatbelts? Are they a bad idea? Because the cost of injuries to this nation would bankrupt us straight away if that was done away with.

Compulsory qualifications for electricians? Wouldn't want my house wired up by someone that didn't know what they are doing.

Sometimes compulsory is better. Because humans don't know better.

[jim.cox]

Compulsory seatbelts? Are they a bad idea?

Yes,

I think they are.

Perhaps they should have to be fitted

But, for adults at least, the wearing of them should be personal choice

[onearmedbandit]

Yes,

I think they are.

Perhaps they should have to be fitted

But, for adults at least, the wearing of them should be personal choice

Can you explain why they are?

And if you want to choose not to wear them then as long as you choose to pay for your own personal medical expenses I'm not worried, you can fly through the front window of any car you like. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 'safety-nazi', but seatbelts are proven to save more lives than they take.

[Icemaestro]

had a friend who came off at about 30km/h coming down a hill without a helmet, TBI, rehab for 18-24 months, still has trouble with energy levels, can only work part time 3 years later

[jim.cox]

Can you explain why they are?


Because, as matter of principle, I dont believe that the State should have the right, or even attempt, to regulate the personal lives of its citizens

Its not that I'm against Seat Belts per se - its the compulsary I find obnoxious

[onearmedbandit]

Because, as matter of principle, I dont believe that the State should have the right, or even attempt, to regulate the personal lives of its citizens

Its not that I'm against Seat Belts per se - its the compulsary I find obnoxious

How far do you take this personal stance? Are you against compulsory schooling for children? Do you feel 'STOP' signs are an affront to your personal freedom?

I admire your stance, and that you have principles, but how far can it go it today's society? We're such a mixed up bunch of personalities/disorders/etc that some level of personal regulation is almost a necessary eveil.

And you can choose to not wear a seatbelt as an adult. However as it's a law you just have to pay for the privilege.

[imdying]

Had a great one last night at about midnight. This dilly bitch was ignoring the red and continued to pedal through the lights as I was coming up to my green. Yes love, I can see the lovely reflectors on the wheels, but no I'm not going to stop. She must've been pissed... I was in the right hand lane (one way street) and she got to about half way across the second lane before she figured I wasn't going to stop. Panic brake, wobble wobble, and over she goes :first:

Another top tip; locked up wheels scare the shit out of cyclists. Similar situation to above, some crazy cyclist ignoring the road rules, so I kept my speed up, even though I was not getting around this one, right of way or not... at the last minute, hard on the anchors, car slows down, then a good hard stab on the pedal; wheels lock up loudly. I knew I wasn't going to hit the bike, but the rider didn't :D Must've shit themselves good, took them a good 5 seconds before they started to scream and yell. Strangely I have no sympathy for cyclists who ignore the road rules so all they got was the bird.

[imdying]

Because, as matter of principle, I dont believe that the State should have the right, or even attempt, to regulate the personal lives of its citizensTrue beau! I wanna bash your kids with a meat tenderiser, how dear those honkies in the hive say I can't! It's my choice!

[Woodman]

Because, as matter of principle, I dont believe that the State should have the right, or even attempt, to regulate the personal lives of its citizens

Its not that I'm against Seat Belts per se - its the compulsary I find obnoxious

Then you should not pay tax and get zero amount of support from the state or the use of the facilities that they provide.
The argument about seatbelts and personal choice is one of those silly academic arguments that have no place in reality.

[nudemetalz]

When my old man had his fatal accident, he was hit by an old fart who pulled out in front of him while he was cycling to work. This was before the compulsory helmet laws but back then they were urging people to wear them.
His head hit the car windscreen pillar.
Had he worn a helmet, he would have survived but most likely been a vegetable for the rest of his life.
Should I have wished he had worn a helmet? Probably not.

[p.dath]

I can tell you what would help me make up my mind on this one.

Since the introduction of cycle helmets, what has happened to the accident rate, and in particular, the number of head injuries?

Put another way, what was the drop in the rate of head injuries?

[onearmedbandit]

When my old man had his fatal accident, he was hit by an old fart who pulled out in front of him while he was cycling to work. This was before the compulsory helmet laws but back then they were urging people to wear them.
His head hit the car windscreen pillar.
Had he worn a helmet, he would have survived but most likely been a vegetable for the rest of his life.
Should I have wished he had worn a helmet? Probably not.

While I appreciate that it is a sensitive issue for you, and I mean no disrespect by my comments, but you can't be entirely sure of that. You could fall over standing still and crack your head on a curb and die, but if you were wearing a hemet you wouldn't even have a headache.

[nudemetalz]

While I appreciate that it is a sensitive issue for you, and I mean no disrespect by my comments, but you can't be entirely sure of that. You could fall over standing still and crack your head on a curb and die, but if you were wearing a hemet you wouldn't even have a headache.

You're quite right there, OAB. I will never know if a helmet may have kept him here or not.
It was just what the surgeons told us. Speculation on their part too of course.

[imdying]

Anyone remember the Cycle Helmet lady who did the rounds at high schools?

[MSTRS]

Unlike seatbelts, I've not heard of anyone being hurt because they were wearing a helmet.

[Big Dave]

After reading all this I'm going to ride down to the shops without it shortly - just to piss the authority who thinks it's necessary to protect me from myself (or panics about their ACC levy).
I'll let you know if I survive. The exercise might even cost the community less if the it stops me having an early heart attack. Although as I do carry comprehensive private health insurance, I doubt it.
Oh PS - My advice is if you are a kultz like devil's boss - wear the hat.

Mwahahahaahahahahah! <- Maniacal Vincent Price laugh.

PPS - the Minnesota way - carry your own insurance and you can make you own decisions about helmets - rely on community medical and it's compulsory - seems like a good way to me.

[jim.cox]

There was a very good editorial in Two Wheels last year pointing out that injuries to pedestrians are a significant cost.

It suggested that helmets and airbags be made compulsary for them too :)

[onearmedbandit]

After reading all this I'm going to ride down to the shops without it shortly - just to piss the people who think it's necessary to protect me from myself or panic about their ACC levy.
I'll let you know if I survive.
Mwahahahaahahahahah! <- Vincent Price laugh.

I take it you are against the motorcycle helmet law as well.

I trust myself that when I ride my motorcycle over to my friends house that I'm not going to do anything stupid or reckless to cause me to fall off. Therefore I don't need protecting from myself either. However that car that suddenly changed into my lane knocking me into oncoming traffic, yeah I need protecting from that. Helmet law or none, I'll wear mine thanks.

[awayatc]

Sheeple can do as they are told

people can think for themselves

[Big Dave]

Damn - tyres are flat and jnr has the pump in his car.

I'll walk to the shops while I can still do that without compulsory hi-viz clothing.

[Big Dave]

I take it you are against the motorcycle helmet law as well.

I trust myself that when I ride my motorcycle over to my friends house that I'm not going to do anything stupid or reckless to cause me to fall off. Therefore I don't need protecting from myself either. However that car that suddenly changed into my lane knocking me into oncoming traffic, yeah I need protecting from that. Helmet law or none, I'll wear mine thanks.

I PPS'd an answer/corrections.

Done to death. Most of the time I'd wear a helmet - sometimes I wouldn't.
I'm not free to make that decision anyway so it doesn't matter.

[Big Dave]

A more sensible question might be (sans maniacal laugh).

How do you reconcile NZ's Adventure/extreme/high risk tourism promotions with the 'risk must be mitigated' doctrine?

[Jonathan]

A more sensible question might be (sans maniacal laugh).

How do you reconcile NZ's Adventure/extreme/high risk tourism promotions with the 'risk must be mitigated' doctrine?

In other words, when are we going to stop wasting money on enquiries every time a tourist dies doing something dangerous for fun?

[Genie]

In other words, when are we going to stop wasting money on enquiries every time a tourist dies doing something dangerous for fun?

aha....yes and that is a whole other topic. But you are so right....and what happens when it all goes wrong..the operator is held accountable. Oh I get they do have a certain responsibilty but should I wish to jump out of an areoplane it is my responsibility the same with jumping off a bridge, racing down a river whatever...I am responsible for me. Should I wish to pay someone to scare the shit out of me and I die...not their "fault"...hmmmmmmm

[yachtie10]

There was a very good editorial in Two Wheels last year pointing out that injuries to pedestrians are a significant cost.

It suggested that helmets and airbags be made compulsary for them too :)

exactly
My thought was why not makle one piece leathers compulsory if crossing a road (lower standard if just using sidewalk) as it will save a life

BTW its not about weather you should wear a helmet its weather some cop in a bad mood will give me a ticket for riding my bike 100 metres back to my garage (in a culdesac) and yes I have seen this happen

[Neshi]

As there are no real cyclelanes in the city and there are cyclelanes on the motorway (where cars are riding 100!) I guess a helmet is a good idea.
However, isn't it up to people to think for themselves and let them wear a helmet if they want to?
If they do not and get into an accident, don't pay them any ACC or a reduced amount.

[imdying]

However, isn't it up to people to think for themselvesYup, but there's the crux of the problem, people don't, and perhaps some can't (children?).

[The Pastor]

I agree, get rid of helmets. Same for motorbikes!

[yachtie10]

I do think it should be compulsory for children mainly because peer pressure will stop them being worn

adults should be able to make there own decison

[Big Dave]

As there are no real cyclelanes in the city and there are cyclelanes on the motorway (where cars are riding 100!) I guess a helmet is a good idea.


Indeed.

Conversely dawdling a treadly down to the shops on an empty avenue is far less dangerous than legally lane splitting on Newmarket overpass in all the gear at peak hour.

Like several of the old schoolers here - I had a motorcycle for 15 years before I got my first crash helmet and rode a push bike for 40 years without one - any brain damage is not due to that!

The argument is essentially a libertarian one and how much the loss of the right to choose sticks in your craw - against the arguments for the 'common' good.

[oldrider]

Eggsackery.

Eggsackery again!

Should only be compulsory for events! IMHO :shifty:

[Woodman]

Damn - tyres are flat and jnr has the pump in his car.

I'll walk to the shops while I can still do that without compulsory hi-viz clothing.

Mate you wanna go for a drive round Nelson at about 5.30 - 6.00 am and check out the amount of people walking around in hiviz gear. There are herds of the fcukers.

[Genie]

Mate you wanna go for a drive round Nelson at about 5.30 - 6.00 am and check out the amount of people walking around in hiviz gear. There are herds of the fcukers.

You are not wrong and the amount of oldies down the railway reserve on their bicycles with high vis gear and damn annoying bells ringing...it's a damn invasion!!!!! NOt safe to be a pedestrian some days!!

[Forest]

I can tell you what would help me make up my mind on this one.

Since the introduction of cycle helmets, what has happened to the accident rate, and in particular, the number of head injuries?

Put another way, what was the drop in the rate of head injuries?

There wasn't any drop in head injuries. The rate of head injuries as a proportion of total injuries remained almost exactly the same after the introduction of helmets. Which indicates that bicycle helmets don't have a significant affect on reducing head injuries.

However what has happened is that the number of bicycle riders dropped considerably after the helmet law was introduced.

I typically cycle about 250km a week and I would wear a helmet regardless of the legal situation. But I sympathise with the folks who want to see the law changed. Most of the countries in western Europe have bicycle friendly cities and a relaxed street culture that encourages casual cycling. You can't do that in this part of the world - just look at what's happening in Melbourne:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helmet-law-makes-nonsense-of-bike-hire-scheme-20100722-10my2.html

I know it's easy to criticise cyclists, but it's an activity that reduces traffic congestion and keeps people healthy. Characterising all cyclists as badly behaved is as stupid as characterising all bikers by the behaviour of squids and other tards.

[davereid]

The biggest study ever done on helmets was done right here in NZ by Mr. Scuffam, who wrote (predictably) "The Scuffam Report".

This report is used by TPTB to justify compulsory helmets as the first line of its conclusion reads (from memory) "Since the introduction of helmets there has been a 5% decrease in the number of head injuries."

The second line is ignored, as it reads "but there has been a 10% decrease in the number of cyclists.".

Mr. Scuffam also said, that "no matter how I manipulate the statistics, I can't find any evidence of gains from helmet usage".

And why would you expect to ?

When you fall off a bike, your head accelerates towards the ground at a rate determined by gravity. The determining factor is the height from which your descent began - your horizontal speed is irrelevant in determining the speed at which you will hit the ground.

It matters not, whether you were stationary, or doing 40 km/hr. The vector of acceleration towards the ground is the same.

So, if I should wear a helmet to protect myself from a fall from my bicycle, I should most certainly wear one while walking. As I am higher. My seat at the bar creates even more danger. I am higher again, and a single malt whisky has apparently destroyed all my co-ordination.

Ahh then, the force helmets brigade argue, what if you hit you head on a lamp-post or a car hits you.

Then they need to do some more basic physics, to determine exactly what accidents a helmet will assist with.

And they will find the answer is virtually none.

Helmets are effective at scrapes, abrasions, and gravel rash prevention. The "open head" type of injury.

They are at best marginal at protecting you from brain injury. A helmet may, if you are very unlucky transform you from dead rider, to alive but brain dead rider.

Those who quote statistics to prove we need helmets will be able to show a small increase in survival rates. Perhaps reducing risk of death by 0.2 - 0.35 times. But they will be reluctant to tell you how many of the survivors they are crowing about are actually in full time care, as they are brain damaged.

[Hoon]

I've taken up cycling recently and doing about 100kms a week. When I saw on the News about them wanting to get rid of helmets I was all for it as 80% of my cycling is on cycleways and haven't ever come close to crashing.
Funny thing is yesterday morning I was going too fast downhill, ran wide in a corner and collected a tree at about 25km, stopped me dead in my tracks. Got off lightly with a badly corked thigh which seems took most the impact with the handle bars as I wrapped myself around the tree.

Sure in this instance the helmet made no difference but it has changed my attitude. I once thought helmets were a waste of time but now I'll wear it for those "one-in-a-million-never-thought-it-could-happen-to-me-because-I'm-too-awesome-to-crash" moments just to be safe. I'm now (like overnight) willing to put up with the slight inconvenience and uncoolness to save unnecessary grief no matter how remote the possibility may be - mainly because now I realise it's not that remote after all.

[MSTRS]

Young hXc, at age 4ish...
Always made to wear his helmet. First ride off the lawn after mastering his bike without the training outriggers. Off down the footpath. Cocky as, he tries to do a wheelie using a driveway. Off he comes. Face plant on the concrete. Broken nose, no skin on his forehead or chin, both front teeth broken off just under the gum.
Did his helmet make any difference?

[Drunken Monkey]

... Broken nose, no skin on his forehead or chin, ...
Did his helmet make any difference?

...doesn't sound like it fit right.

From an individual's perspective, it really comes down to mitigating risk. No different to the AGAT threads we have here ad nauseum. Legislation and (lack of) enforcement aside, you would certainly think the risks of trundling around at a slow pace around a bicycle-friendly town would be as reasonably close to nil as practical. I don't personally see why one should be forced to wear a helmet in that environment. I probably wouldn't wear one if I was mountain biking slowly in a social group and avoiding the tricks either, but park policy forbids this. As it stands I charge around and test my mettle on whatever jumps and drop-offs I can bring myself to attempt, in those cases I don't even think the helmet on its own is enough, but there's no enforcement of additional arm, back or leg protection. No different to the road, I don't actually wear one if I nip down the other end of the street to pick something up from the dairy, but when I mix it up with traffic and get over 60km/h down the hills, I'll take what little protection the helmet offers.

As observed, in practice enforcement is pretty weak here. I've only been noticed by a cop once while I was dawdling slowly past at walking pace with a bunch of other people:

Him: "You should be wearing your helmet."

Me: "I know."

Him: "Ok."

Notwithstanding only posties and kids 12 and under are allowed to cycle on a footpath anyway, and he didn't say anything about that.

[p.dath]

There wasn't any drop in head injuries. The rate of head injuries as a proportion of total injuries remained almost exactly the same after the introduction of helmets. Which indicates that bicycle helmets don't have a significant affect on reducing head injuries.

I'm looking at this report:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Cyclist%20Crash%20Statistics%2009.pdf
I'm looking at the time series table under the page titled Hospitalisations. The helmet law came into effect 1994.

Prior to 1994 there were around 20 fatalities per year. In the last 10 years this appears to have reduced to about 10. I'm sure the number of cylists has not halved.

HOWEVER, I see the 5 years after 1994 the fatality rate didn't really drop. So this makes me think someother factor apart from helmets has been responsible for the halving of the fatality rates.

[MSTRS]

...doesn't sound like it fit right.



It fitted just fine. The front of the helmet hit the ground and was pushed back on his head. All his injuries were to the front of his head (his face). The helmet was useless for protecting from that sort of injury.
Do you not wince (too) when you see those staunch HD riders with their (all but useless) legal pudding bowls?

[FJRider]

HOWEVER, I see the 5 years after 1994 the fatality rate didn't really drop. So this makes me think someother factor apart from helmets has been responsible for the halving of the fatality rates.

The fatality rate may not have dropped, but with an increasing number of cyclists riding ... the ratio of deaths / increasing percentage of riders on the road, would have to improved.
Plus ... more cycle lanes provided ... and more people riding on the footpath.

[Kickaha]

But they will be reluctant to tell you how many of the survivors they are crowing about are actually in full time care, as they are brain damaged.

You've pulled that one a couple of times in helmet discussions, without any figures to back you up how would you know whether there are anymore in full time care or any less since the introduction of compulsory helmet usage?

[FJRider]

Statistics can prove (or disprove) anything you want ... if the right questions are asked.

[Ocean1]

I'm sure the number of cylists has not halved.

It's not safe to make such assumprions. It wouldn't surprise me, cheap powered transport has proliferated over that time.

[Wannabiker]

It fitted just fine. The front of the helmet hit the ground and was pushed back on his head. All his injuries were to the front of his head (his face). The helmet was useless for protecting from that sort of injury.
Do you not wince (too) when you see those staunch HD riders with their (all but useless) legal pudding bowls?

It could have been worse. If the front of the helmet had not hit the gtound first, his wee face would have travelled an extra 30mm to the ground and the contact would have then been with his forehead, nose and lower jaw.

All helmets are useless, a waste of time (add whatever argument you want here), until the moment that your head contacts the pavement, rock, road, tree....it is only then that you appreciate the extra money and time that you spent selecting a good helmet with the correct fit....Like motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets that have been crashed must be destroyed and disposed of.

[ajturbo]

i ride without a helmet (pushbike) and when i get pulled up for not wearing one... my name is john smith.. sorry don't have to carry ID when on a bike so no, i don't have any proof of my name ... ticket... wooops dropped it

[Drunken Monkey]

Do you not wince (too) when you see those staunch HD riders with their (all but useless) legal pudding bowls?

Well, no. As much as I think a bit of gravel rash to the chin could actually make some of those apes prettier, they're on their bikes having fun - out there, on the road, in celebration of life - not in fear of death.

There are other types of people out there that should consider even getting out of bed in the morning probably isn't the right choice for them.

[Drunken Monkey]

Prior to 1994 there were around 20 fatalities per year. In the last 10 years this appears to have reduced to about 10. I'm sure the number of cylists has not halved.



Actually, it has:

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Cycling trip numbers roughly halved between 1989 and 2006.

[davereid]

they're on their bikes having fun - out there, on the road, in celebration of life - not in fear of death.


That is the problem.

People doing stuff that is unsafe just for enjoyment.

They are arrogant, and they cost us money when they have accidents.

We should ban this kind of behavior. Helmetless cyclists, smokers, drinkers, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The worst is motorcyclists.

They buy powerful machines, that have no place on a public road. They ride them for pleasure on non-essential trips, causing risk to themselves, and others, as well as needless greenhouse gas production.

Lets not forget that this is mostly done just for enjoyment.

We should follow the wonderful example of the Philippines, who have finally got a grasp on their terrible motorcycle death rate.

Its easy.

Ban all motorcycles with engines larger than 125cc or 18 BHP. This will not effect genuine commuters or riders who have no need to break the speed limit.

[ajturbo]

Ban all motorcycles with engines larger than 125cc or 18 BHP. This will not effect genuine commuters or riders who have no need to break the speed limit.

woo hoo.. a fire breathing 18hp....now THATS a bucket racer:Punk:

[Drunken Monkey]

That is the problem.

People doing stuff that is unsafe just for enjoyment.

They are arrogant, and they cost us money when they have accidents.

We should ban this kind of behavior. Helmetless cyclists, smokers, drinkers, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The worst is motorcyclists.

They buy powerful machines, that have no place on a public road. They ride them for pleasure on non-essential trips, causing risk to themselves, and others, as well as needless greenhouse gas production.

Lets not forget that this is mostly done just for enjoyment.

We should follow the wonderful example of the Philippines, who have finally got a grasp on their terrible motorcycle death rate.

Its easy.

Ban all motorcycles with engines larger than 125cc or 18 BHP. This will not effect genuine commuters or riders who have no need to break the speed limit.

Good for you, bubble boy :)

[Big Dave]

Jakarta is considering motorcycle 'curfews' because the city is getting 900 new (mostly scooter) riders per day and the roads can't cope.

900 per day! - I wonder how many NZ gets in a year?

[Kickaha]

Jakarta is considering motorcycle 'curfews' because the city is getting 900 new (mostly scooter) riders per day and the roads can't cope.

900 per day! - I wonder how many NZ gets in a year?

Would they rather have 900 new car drivers?

[MSTRS]

It could have been worse.
I *think* you were being sarky...
If not, then how could it have been worse? The helmet merely delayed face/concrete contact. With no mitigation of injury.


Well, no. As much as I think a bit of gravel rash to the chin could actually make some of those apes prettier...

I only used that type of helmet to illustrate how useless cycle helmets are.
Sure, the legalities are covered, but that's it. Like cycle helmets, those pudding basins are actually useless for the most part.

[Big Dave]

Would they rather have 900 new car drivers?


Loooksury. We used t' dream 'bout havin' t'car.

[davereid]

woo hoo.. a fire breathing 18hp....now THATS a bucket racer:Punk:


Haha.. yeah too right...

I guess the point I was trying to make it that we have filled the thread up with those convinced that if they can demonstrate a safety advantage to banning helmet-less cycling, then it should be done.

So we have debated the statistics, because we have apparently accepted the premise thats it's ok in the name of safety to stop people doing stuff they enjoy.

I just see that as the thin end of the wedge, as there is no real reason for motorcycling at all, except as budget transport. And that need is easily met with 125 c.c. bikes.

For everyone of us happy to use "public safety" to eliminate helmet-less cycling there is someone equally happy to eliminate hyper powered motorcycles for the same reason.

Then the debate becomes merely one of "how much power ?"

Asia has already decided the figure is 18HP.

If my memory serves me, in the 70 or 80's the EU proposed 65 H.P.

Bikers only avoided that as some smart EU bikers supported the ban, but cleverly turned it into a "horsepower to limit top speed" argument, which resulted in cars being limited as well.

I guess I am just saying "beware feeding the safety Nazis... they will breed and keep sniffing around"

[Ocean1]

I just see that as the thin end of the wedge,

It's been too thick for me for several decades.

Fuck 'em, just 'cause they decided to use my money to pay for every other fucker's driving/riding/working/fucking habits don't mean they get to castigate me for my supposed recklesness.

Can't be bothered with the aorta brigade either, the ones that were responsible for the thin end sneaking through the "concerned citizen" gap in the "social responsiibility" fence all dem years ago. Big black dog up'em, stupid carnts.

[Wannabiker]

[QUOTE=MSTRS;1129825216]I *think* you were being sarky...
If not, then how could it have been worse? The helmet merely delayed face/concrete contact. With no mitigation of injury.

Hmmm. I wasnt trying to be smart and apologise if it came across like that.. Obviously, the outcome could have been better, and I feel for your son. I am in the dental profession, and deal with this type of injury often.

Cycle helmets for the most part are designed to protect the cranium. (the bit where the brain sits, and the most difficult bit to repair!!)). They offer little protection for the lower jaw or teeth. (unless specific design such as BMX or downhill MTB). Most helmets have a larger volume of polystyrene at the rear to protect the most vulnerable part.

The fact that your sons helmet was displaced on contact with the ground indicates that there was potential for that part of the head that was initially protected by the helmet to have made contact with the ground at the full force of the impact. Even though the helmet was displaced, there would have been a degree of shock absorption / deceleration.
(theoratically)

I worked for several years in a bicycle shop when I was racing (as a gesture to my sponsors) I was suprized at the number of parents that would buy a bike for their kids, but skimp on a helmet. I used to cringe at mothers and fathers that would buy a bike carrier seat for their bike for their child to travel in on the road, wear a helmet themselves and not buy one for their toddler. At that age, a childs reflexes are not as developed, nor are their muscles strong enough to be able to protect them in a crash.

Anyways...I could ramble on for hours.

As I said in anearlier post....all helmets are a useless waste of time...right up till the time your head hits the ground....

I would rather my head be in a helmet hitting the ground, than not.

[Woodman]

I guess I am just saying "beware feeding the safety Nazis... they will breed and keep sniffing around"

yes be very very careful about using safety as an argument.

[FJRider]

yes be very very careful about using safety as an argument.

Safety should be a requisite ... not an arguement .... :mellow:

[BMWST?]

Now come on, let the cyclists do what they want. Cyclists are perfect in every way .
They shouldn't have to follow the law and should be able to do whatever they want on the road even though they contribute nothing towards it as cyclists.
I actually feel inferior to these paragons of perfectness every time I use the road in my car or on my motorbike.

most cyclists pay their taxes which helped build the roads in the first place

[FJRider]

most cyclists pay their taxes which helped build the roads in the first place

It would be naive to suggest that "most" cyclists do not own a vehicle that requires regristration.

[BMWST?]

It would be naive to suggest that "most" cyclists do not own a vehicle that requires regristration.

agreed but theoreticly that just goes towards that cars share.....

[FJRider]

agreed but theoreticly that just goes towards that cars share.....

AND .... theoreticly ... we (by law) are allowed to ride a bycycle ANY time WE choose ... if WE choose NOT to ... that is OUR choice ...

[MSTRS]

Hmmm. I wasnt trying to be smart and apologise if it came across like that..

Not a problem. Apologies are good, offers of beer are better...



I would rather my head be in a helmet hitting the ground, than not.
Agreed. Though that might depend on the helmet. I don't believe open face and cycle helmets are worth a pinch of shit in the scheme of things. There's a reason for fullface/MX helmets....