What can I say?

[Ocean1]

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.

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.

Same. Also, the drop in head injuries post-helmet legislation was less than the drop in the cyclist population it caused. Think about that for a minute.

At the time it was introduced there was plenty of off-shore evidence that also indicated that helmets made less difference than the statistical margin of error.

Just another case of Auntie knowing best, and being completely wrong.

[nzspokes]

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.

Do you wear one when riding a motorcycle?

Do your children wear them if not riding on the road?

[nzspokes]

Same. Also, the drop in head injuries post-helmet legislation was less than the drop in the cyclist population it caused. Think about that for a minute.

At the time it was introduced there was plenty of off-shore evidence that also indicated that helmets made less difference than the statistical margin of error.

Just another case of Auntie knowing best, and being completely wrong.

There are more bicycles being sold new than ever before by a large margin. Along with that there is many times more helmets being sold.

To back that up, there are many more units going through workshops than ever before. To the point its hard to get mechanics currently.

[chasio]

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.

First off: I always wear a bike helmet on the pushy - partly because if I ride, I try to keep my speed up. I also did this in the UK years ago, where helmets are optional.

But I actually don't think what I am doing makes sense and here's why: unlike say seatbelts or airbags in cars and motorbike helmets, bike helmets are not statistically proven to work, to the best of my knowledge (Example). I'd be happy if you could point me at research that proves that they are beneficial.

So we are in the realms of opinion with regard to their efficacy. At least one neurosurgeon thinks they are too flimsy to have a material benefit. (This guy here.). And in Canada there is no evidence compulsory helmets had a material effect on head injuries.

However there is research that shows:

1) The more cyclists are on the road, the safer all cyclists become through habituation (an argument that we sometimes employ as motorcyclists). (PDF)
2) There are health benefits in cycling as a cardiovascular exercise and it also helps with weight control. These reduce a multitude of other risk factors and dissuading people from cycling reduces those benefits. (Example)
3) People are dissuaded from cycling by mandatory helmets, which does not help either point 1 or 2.
4) Motorists tend to pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those not wearing them (perceived risk is lower, perhaps), thus increasing the risk of impact by a passing vehicle.

Getting hit from behind is not a good scenario for broken bones and organ damage which of course can be severe. Neither is it good for the head, injuries to which may be even more devastating. But if helmets are actually too flimsy to help, why make them compulsory? You could really put people off cycling by making motorbike helmets the requirement. At least there is statistical evidence that they help. Multiple compound fractures, blood loss and organ damage may well kill me instead.

My personal experience cycling in Auckland is that in the end the Russian Roulette aspect got me off the treadly. I started out believing that it was unlikely that I'd get hit and ended up believing it was only a matter of time, due to the frequency with which I found myself a gnat's whisker from being hit from behind. I was also once cycling uphill when I was punched in the kidneys by a passing hoon, I also had beer bottles thrown at me on many occasions and was "shaved" with the horn blaring "for a laugh" very frequently. I hasten to add that I was always in "good" suburbs, cycling alone and keeping left (not being a bloody-minded obstacle). It wasn't helmet law that put me off, it was the mindless aggression.

I also rather believe that the more friends and family we have who we know ride bikes, the less aggressive we will be towards strangers on bikes. That's just an opinion, but to me it seems logical.

So I'd like the helmet law repealed and to see more people on bikes. I think that would be a good thing, for the reasons stated above.

Cheers - Chasio

[Berries]

Do you wear one when riding a motorcycle?

I do. I am likely to travel in excess of 100km/h every time I get on one and therefore my risk assessment is that if I come off it will be at a relatively high speed and I would like to protect my head, same reason I wear gloves on a motorbike.

On a push bike speeds are so much slower that my risk assessment comes to a different conclusion. A multitude of unpowered two wheeler crashes support my conclusion.

Do your children wear them if not riding on the road?

Depends if Mum is around or not, but I am talking about me not them.

[Big Dog]

There are more bicycles being sold new than ever before by a large margin. Along with that there is many times more helmets being sold.

To back that up, there are many more units going through workshops than ever before. To the point its hard to get mechanics currently.

A small stick in the spokes of that argument... bikes don't last as long as they used to, require more maintenance and the average rider is less competent at maintaining them.


Sent via tapatalk.

[Ocean1]

There are more bicycles being sold new than ever before by a large margin. Along with that there is many times more helmets being sold.

To back that up, there are many more units going through workshops than ever before. To the point its hard to get mechanics currently.

All of which says more about population growth and cycle/helmet quality than any supposed safety benefits of helmets.

Seriously, how much protection do you expect of a flimsy piece of unreinforced styrene perched on top of the head? As a safety device it probably saves about as much in head damage as it causes in choking damage.

They're a piece of cost neutral PC bullshit, like most officially mandated "safety" measures.

Edit: And if 'Er majesty's finest were serious about motorcycle safety there would be a fucking sight fewer posts and barriers scattered around the side of our roads.

[scumdog]

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.

Shee-it but you must know some right retards!

[Big Dog]

What can I say. I work in Auckland.


Some otherwise super intelligent people driven to madness by other Aucklanders seek a common enemy in any perceived minority.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

If I was in charge "for a day" I would decentralise business so we are not all heading into the same 16km radius at the same time on the same days.
Giving the people back hours of their lives and families back parents who spend the equivalent of a work day each week or more sitting in traffic.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

Shee-it but you must know some right retards!

Always fun to see the colour drain from their faces when I tell them I ride a push when I can.

Sent via tapatalk.

[nzspokes]

A small stick in the spokes of that argument... bikes don't last as long as they used to, require more maintenance and the average rider is less competent at maintaining them.


Sent via tapatalk.

No thats very wrong. Bicycles are made to much higher standards today. And people were rubbish at looking after them in the old days as well.

[nzspokes]

First off: I always wear a bike helmet on the pushy - partly because if I ride, I try to keep my speed up. I also did this in the UK years ago, where helmets are optional.

But I actually don't think what I am doing makes sense and here's why: unlike say seatbelts or airbags in cars and motorbike helmets, bike helmets are not statistically proven to work, to the best of my knowledge (Example). I'd be happy if you could point me at research that proves that they are beneficial.

So we are in the realms of opinion with regard to their efficacy. At least one neurosurgeon thinks they are too flimsy to have a material benefit. (This guy here.). And in Canada there is no evidence compulsory helmets had a material effect on head injuries.

However there is research that shows:

1) The more cyclists are on the road, the safer all cyclists become through habituation (an argument that we sometimes employ as motorcyclists). (PDF)
2) There are health benefits in cycling as a cardiovascular exercise and it also helps with weight control. These reduce a multitude of other risk factors and dissuading people from cycling reduces those benefits. (Example)
3) People are dissuaded from cycling by mandatory helmets, which does not help either point 1 or 2.
4) Motorists tend to pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those not wearing them (perceived risk is lower, perhaps), thus increasing the risk of impact by a passing vehicle.

Getting hit from behind is not a good scenario for broken bones and organ damage which of course can be severe. Neither is it good for the head, injuries to which may be even more devastating. But if helmets are actually too flimsy to help, why make them compulsory? You could really put people off cycling by making motorbike helmets the requirement. At least there is statistical evidence that they help. Multiple compound fractures, blood loss and organ damage may well kill me instead.

My personal experience cycling in Auckland is that in the end the Russian Roulette aspect got me off the treadly. I started out believing that it was unlikely that I'd get hit and ended up believing it was only a matter of time, due to the frequency with which I found myself a gnat's whisker from being hit from behind. I was also once cycling uphill when I was punched in the kidneys by a passing hoon, I also had beer bottles thrown at me on many occasions and was "shaved" with the horn blaring "for a laugh" very frequently. I hasten to add that I was always in "good" suburbs, cycling alone and keeping left (not being a bloody-minded obstacle). It wasn't helmet law that put me off, it was the mindless aggression.

I also rather believe that the more friends and family we have who we know ride bikes, the less aggressive we will be towards strangers on bikes. That's just an opinion, but to me it seems logical.

So I'd like the helmet law repealed and to see more people on bikes. I think that would be a good thing, for the reasons stated above.

Cheers - Chasio

I dont and have never thought they would do a lot. Im not a advocate of them.

I just dont believe more people will ride em if the law changes. Its an excuse for being lazy.

[Berries]

No thats very wrong. Bicycles are made to much higher standards today.

See I would disagree with you there as well but we are off topic.

Back to the ODT report, I thought the tip about using bus lanes was invaluable.

[nzspokes]

See I would disagree with you there as well but we are off topic.

Back to the ODT report, I thought the tip about using bus lanes was invaluable.

34 years working in the bicycle trade as first a mechanic and now tech adviser says different.