Helmet Law Has Halved Cyclist Numbers (now With Pole)

kaiteri · *by **kaiteri** on Mon 13th Feb 12:16pm*

Jeez, some of the arguments in support of the 'helmet law' are depressingly dumb

Those of us who suggest we need to look at the research on the impact of mandatory helmet use on cycling safety are not anti-helmet. Wear a helmet if you want, where you want (I do/will).

The evidence from numerous studies (links have been posted before - look them up if you're seriously interested in facts) is that compulsory helmet laws lead to reduced cycling numbers which lead to poorer health outcomes - cycling & non-cycling related.

I want to feel safer when riding. I believe repealing the current law will, in time, help achieve that by:
- increasing cycling numbers
- increasing driver awareness of cyclists
- bring about improved cycling infrastructure
- reducing the no. of vehicles in urban areas.

piwakawaka · *by **piwakawaka** on Mon 13th Feb 12:48pm*

Just left LBS and helmet on the floor of workshop, have to say always, usually, wear mine but that was the nicest ride up Wadestown Hill ever! Fear always has, is and always will be the best form of control.

brian245 · *by **brian245** on Mon 13th Feb 1:01pm*

There is quite a positive to declining health due to inactivity, a lot of these fatties will never reach old age and thus not be a cost to the
old age pension scheme so no need to think about raising the age of eligibilty which also has the disadvantage of opening up fewer jobs for younger workers if older people work longer.

Klarkash-ton · *by **Klarkash-ton** on Mon 13th Feb 2:40pm*

Helmets are dangerous. they stop you from seeing where you are going. Shame on cyclists going half the speed limit on the Hutt Motorway :paranoid:

! Helmets do not prevent accidents!

Adrian M #249 04:42 pm Feb 12 2012

When there are loud sounds we don’t go straight away for earmuffs, but we go to the source and reduce the sound as much as possible. This works the same for cyclists. In case of accidents don’t go for helmets but eliminate the cause of the accident. Helmets don’t prevent accidents. Too many cyclists turn the road into a racetrack. I have clocked them at 50 km/h on the Hutt Motorway. They are bent over with a helmet on which restrict their clear view. Too many people wear helmets incorrectly in which case it is safer not to wear a helmet. Because of the recommendation by the AA to pass a cyclist at 1.5 m distance I have seen dangerous situations where cars go well over the no-passing line to pass a cyclist. This recommendation is a no-brainer. If people want to wear helmets or not, I don’t care, but they do not prevent accidents. To prevent accidents one has to be responsible and careful on bike and in car.

swtchbckr · *by **swtchbckr** on Mon 13th Feb 3:13pm*

brian245 wrote:There is quite a positive to declining health due to inactivity, a lot of these fatties will never reach old age and thus not be a cost to the
old age pension scheme so no need to think about raising the age of eligibilty which also has the disadvantage of opening up fewer jobs for younger workers if older people work longer.

problem with that pheory is that these 'fatties' will cost the healthcare system a buttload before they kark it, with all their diabetes associated issues and other complications of being abundantly fatted, and how much will taxpayer funded stomach stapling cost!?!?

hickie · *by **hickie** on Mon 13th Feb 3:18pm*

swtchbckr wrote:
brian245 wrote:There is quite a positive to declining health due to inactivity, a lot of these fatties will never reach old age and thus not be a cost to the
old age pension scheme so no need to think about raising the age of eligibilty which also has the disadvantage of opening up fewer jobs for younger workers if older people work longer.

problem with that pheory is that these 'fatties' will cost the healthcare system a buttload before they kark it, with all their diabetes associated issues and other complications of being abundantly fatted, and how much will taxpayer funded stomach stapling cost!?!?

as opposed them becoming old bastards and costing a fortune?

and as for those dirty smokers, they're the only bastards that pre-pay their health care, maybe we should give them private rooms and gourmet room service when they go to hospital :satan:

Simonius_Titius · *by **Simonius_Titius** on Mon 13th Feb 4:09pm*

Fo' sure. The decline in smoking is a big problem for NZ healthcare funding in the long term, smokers die so much younger that their lifetime treatment costs are less.

Mickyfinn · *by **Mickyfinn** on Mon 13th Feb 5:54pm*

Simonius_Titius wrote:Fo' sure. The decline in smoking is a big problem for NZ healthcare funding in the long term, smokers die so much younger that their lifetime treatment costs are less.

That section of the community is also driving more badly and killing them selves too..... however what you have not included in your calculation is that they don't work any way so infact I'd say we get about even...

There is however the question of the unreasonable use of oxygen !

Perhaps a fat tax ?

CrustyMTB · *by **CrustyMTB** on Mon 13th Feb 8:37pm*

Klarkash-ton wrote:Helmets are dangerous. they stop you from seeing where you are going. Shame on cyclists going half the speed limit on the Hutt Motorway ! Helmets do not prevent accidents!

Ahhhhhhhh, but they do!! Almost no-one rides bicycles anymore because of helmets so there are fewer bike accidents*.

*post may contain traces of sarcasm

great uncle bulgaria · *by **great uncle bulgaria** on Mon 13th Feb 10:31pm*

CrustyMTB wrote:
Klarkash-ton wrote:Helmets are dangerous. they stop you from seeing where you are going. Shame on cyclists going half the speed limit on the Hutt Motorway ! Helmets do not prevent accidents!
Ahhhhhhhh, but they do!! Almost no-one rides bicycles anymore because of helmets so there are fewer bike accidents*.

*post may contain traces of sarcasm

so thats why seatbelt laws were so effective :thumbsup: