New helmet law?

[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?

[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

[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!