What can I say?

[rastuscat]

What were your reasons for that stance? I can understand that most falls on a push bike are going to be reasonably low speed etc. but it is still your head and what not.

Now you're for it.

When cycling helmets became compulsory head injuries decreased. The zealots were thrilled, the neurosurgeons equally so.

What nobody really noticed was that the introduction of helmets also saw a significant down turn in the number of people cycling. Some as a result of not wanting to wear helmets.

Wind the clock forward to 2016 and ponder why the obesity rate has increased significantly. As the population gets into their cars for journeys less than 3 km which used to be taken by bicycle.

And look at the number of parents who drive their kids to school, instead of cycling. They will tell you that it's far too dangerous for their kids to cycle. A view partly caused by the legislation of helmets, which imply that it must be unsafe.

So now, cycling is a risk which many will not take, or allow their kids to take. When if they had managed the risk the kids would have developed a better understanding of the roads, making them safer, even in later life.

Now I'm on a roll.

I reckon compulsory helmets for sports cycling (anyone riding in excess of 25 kmh) and for under 18s. The idea of wearing a helmet when riding 400 metres to buy milk is a nonsense.

I await all the stats about most crashes being close to home etc, and all the comments about my silly views.

But I'm allowed those silly views as much as anyone is on here.

Personal responsibility. And I know ACC pays for head injuries I suffer when riding my bike but I sort of feel entitled when I'm paying ACC levies on two bikes, two cars and a trailer, which are parked in my drive when I'm out cycling.

All that said, the only time I've ridden with no helmet was uphill in the French Alps, before donning my helmet at the peak of the Galibier, Telegraphe, Alpe de HueZ etc.

It's a challenging life in the blue suit when you don't agree with the rules you are expected to enforce.

[JimO]

my 3 boys rode their bikes to intermediate school the bike racks were chockka, when they started highschool they stopped riding as it wasnt cool, the bike racks there were mainly empty

[rastuscat]

my 3 boys rode their bikes to intermediate school the bike racks were chockka, when they started highschool they stopped riding as it wasnt cool, the bike racks there were mainly empty

Helmets aren't cool. That's part of what drives people away.

As does laziness.

[RGVforme]

Now you're for it.

When cycling helmets became compulsory head injuries decreased. The zealots were thrilled, the neurosurgeons equally so.

What nobody really noticed was that the introduction of helmets also saw a significant down turn in the number of people cycling. Some as a result of not wanting to wear helmets.

Wind the clock forward to 2016 and ponder why the obesity rate has increased significantly. As the population gets into their cars for journeys less than 3 km which used to be taken by bicycle.

And look at the number of parents who drive their kids to school, instead of cycling. They will tell you that it's far too dangerous for their kids to cycle. A view partly caused by the legislation of helmets, which imply that it must be unsafe.

So now, cycling is a risk which many will not take, or allow their kids to take. When if they had managed the risk the kids would have developed a better understanding of the roads, making them safer, even in later life.

Now I'm on a roll.

I reckon compulsory helmets for sports cycling (anyone riding in excess of 25 kmh) and for under 18s. The idea of wearing a helmet when riding 400 metres to buy milk is a nonsense.

I await all the stats about most crashes being close to home etc, and all the comments about my silly views.

But I'm allowed those silly views as much as anyone is on here.

Personal responsibility. And I know ACC pays for head injuries I suffer when riding my bike but I sort of feel entitled when I'm paying ACC levies on two bikes, two cars and a trailer, which are parked in my drive when I'm out cycling.

All that said, the only time I've ridden with no helmet was uphill in the French Alps, before donning my helmet at the peak of the Galibier, Telegraphe, Alpe de HueZ etc.

It's a challenging life in the blue suit when you don't agree with the rules you are expected to enforce.

Cheers for that little hint at the end about your past profession.Would not have guessed that at all lol.

[oneofsix]

I cant even rationalise that myself.

I always wear ATGATT on my moped and motorbikes, but when I'm road cycling I'm happy to go downhill at 70 kmh in lycra.

Can't even figure that one myself.

Force verses velocity. The pushie only adds grams to your weight and therefore adds little impact force, a motorcycle adds a couple of hundred of kilograms. A push bike is a fraction of my weight whereas my motorcycle is over twice. Falling off your pushie at 70k is a bit like falling off the rope swing or flying fox but try that with a couple of hundred kilos propelling you on.

[caspernz]

Helmets aren't cool. That's part of what drives people away.

As does laziness.

The reduced number of cyclists on the road makes those who do ride more vulnerable, becomes a catch 22.

Back home in Holland I'd ride my pushie here there and everywhere, feels more like Russian roulette over here

[WristTwister]

In Wellington there are 3 types of scooter riders.

1. The first lot ride scooters because they are cheap to run, they don't have the cash to spend on gear or don't want the inconvenience - they just use the scooter to get to class or visit friends around town anyway.
2. The second are hipsters, riding a scooter is like a statement, they have the little pastel coloured Italian piazza with coffee cup holders, wearing gear isn't cool and the helmet has to be open faced so their beards can be free.
3. The third are the risk takers, they get a scooter because it gives them mobility on a learners licence, they don't maintain their scooters or wear gear, they weave through traffic because they can, they wear shorts and singlets because "YOLO", and their scooters sound like they're stuck in first gear.

There is a rumour that there is a fourth group, who ride maxis and wear all the gear and hi-vis vests.

[Big Dog]

The reduced number of cyclists on the road makes those who do ride more vulnerable, becomes a catch 22.

Back home in Holland I'd ride my pushie here there and everywhere, feels more like Russian roulette over here

Multiply that by the negative views road users tend to carry about minorities...
You'd be surprised how many people have told me that that have tried to knock a rider of before. Or that all cyclists should die.



Sent via tapatalk.

[rastuscat]

Cheers for that little hint at the end about your past profession.Would not have guessed that at all lol.

Got me. I was Chief Chocolate-Fish Filleter at the MoTaRD

(Ministry of Time and Regal Dysfunctionality)

[nzspokes]

Now you're for it.

When cycling helmets became compulsory head injuries decreased. The zealots were thrilled, the neurosurgeons equally so.

What nobody really noticed was that the introduction of helmets also saw a significant down turn in the number of people cycling. Some as a result of not wanting to wear helmets.

Wind the clock forward to 2016 and ponder why the obesity rate has increased significantly. As the population gets into their cars for journeys less than 3 km which used to be taken by bicycle.

And look at the number of parents who drive their kids to school, instead of cycling. They will tell you that it's far too dangerous for their kids to cycle. A view partly caused by the legislation of helmets, which imply that it must be unsafe.

So now, cycling is a risk which many will not take, or allow their kids to take. When if they had managed the risk the kids would have developed a better understanding of the roads, making them safer, even in later life.

Now I'm on a roll.

I reckon compulsory helmets for sports cycling (anyone riding in excess of 25 kmh) and for under 18s. The idea of wearing a helmet when riding 400 metres to buy milk is a nonsense.

I await all the stats about most crashes being close to home etc, and all the comments about my silly views.

But I'm allowed those silly views as much as anyone is on here.

Personal responsibility. And I know ACC pays for head injuries I suffer when riding my bike but I sort of feel entitled when I'm paying ACC levies on two bikes, two cars and a trailer, which are parked in my drive when I'm out cycling.

All that said, the only time I've ridden with no helmet was uphill in the French Alps, before donning my helmet at the peak of the Galibier, Telegraphe, Alpe de HueZ etc.

It's a challenging life in the blue suit when you don't agree with the rules you are expected to enforce.

Nice argument. But you couldnt be more wrong. Helmets are not the reason for your stats showing there are less bicycle riders.

Your stats are wrong is the problem.

[lokhor]

One of the problems is that moped riders don't need to do any particular riding courses, they can ride them on a learner car license. It's a bit naff that we end up paying additional registration costs/ACC levies because of moped riders.

[Berries]

Helmets are not the reason for your stats showing there are less bicycle riders.

They are the one and only reason I have never ridden a pushbike in NZ yet frequently commuted on one overseas. They are why I do not own a push bike and why my seven and eight year olds have no on-road riding skills and therefore won't be going to school on their bikes.

[nzspokes]

They are the one and only reason I have never ridden a pushbike in NZ yet frequently commuted on one overseas. They are why I do not own a push bike and why my seven and eight year olds have no on-road riding skills and therefore won't be going to school on their bikes.

No thats because you dont want to ride, not because you would have to wear a helmet.

A helmet is an excuse, not the reason.

[Berries]

Sorry, but you are wrong in this case. I am well aware that cycling would improve my fitness after giving up smoking a couple of years ago, shit, I even took up swimming again, but I am not wearing a poxy helmet when I managed the first 20 years of my life safely without one. Not sure what the stats are and don't particularly care, but that is the result of the 100% survey of me, myself and I.

[willytheekid]

I think all road users should start on a moped or motorcycle before being able to obtain a car license ...might open a few eyes in-regards to over confidence matched with poor skill sets that result in dangerous driving & fatalities.(BIG difference between panel damage and crippling yourself!)

PS...whats your view on peddlys and mirrors Ras?...seeing as EVERY other form of road going vehicle is legally required to have them, and EVERY driver training course etc HAMMERS the use of mirrors to ensure safety...yet cyclists?? (Riding around Half fuckin blind!, or twisting in there seat to "glance behind them"...while drifting into traffic in the process...and the stats PROVE this blind spot is killing them!...over 70% of fatalities = hit from behind!!...go figure eh)