Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

nzma.org.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#11

Post by thedragonaut »

awjr wrote: post #6
thedragonaut wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are. In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars leading to a massive growth in car ownership. More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the road, cycling becomes more dangerous. This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.

Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/...

"there was a 67% decline in serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing data for the years nearest the helmet law (1988–1991 vs. 1996–1999)."

"Tin Tin et al6 list several reasons apart from the helmet law for declines in cycling rates and increases in cycling injuries. These include the lack of cycling focus in the New Zealand road safety agenda, an increase in children being driven to school due to parental concerns of safety and an already existing pre-law decline in cycling rates."

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#12

Post by Mithaldu »

thedragonaut wrote: post #4
awjr wrote: post #2

For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause premature deaths through lack of exercise TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New Zealand’s helmet law: Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature d…

No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are. In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars leading to a massive growth in car ownership. More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the road, cycling becomes more dangerous. This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

You're overlooking one thing: The less cyclists are on the road the less car drivers will be used to their presence and on the lookout for them. This is the danger caused indirectly by helmet laws.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#13

Post by abandonliberty »

thedragonaut wrote: post #4
awjr wrote: post #2

For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause premature deaths through lack of exercise TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New Zealand’s helmet law: Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature d…

No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are. In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars leading to a massive growth in car ownership. More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the road, cycling becomes more dangerous. This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

I would love to see the two datasets side by side

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#14

Post by Mithaldu »

kken wrote: post #3
awjr wrote: post #2

For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause premature deaths through lack of exercise TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New Zealand’s helmet law: Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature d…

I believe this kind of trend has been known for a while and was a main reason for not introducing helment laws in Germany.

Yes, exactly this issue was discussed last summer and helmet laws declared detrimental for exactly the points laid out in the article.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#15

Post by shasheene »

Correlation does not imply causation - the observed 75% reduction of cycling among children aged 5-17 (from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week) from 1989/90 to 2005/08 coincides with the increase in popularity of internet/video games etc (and I believe, a drop in all forms of outdoor activity)

Also this article is 3 years old and should probably be appended with [2012]

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#16

Post by nols »

cpearce wrote: post #8

My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.

No one is saying you shouldn't wear them, the debate is whether or not countries should make it mandatory. If you require bicycle helmets then fewer people ride their bikes, leading to fewer people pushing for safe bicycling laws, more cars on the road, and a less active (and thus less healthy) population.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#17

Post by analog31 »

nzealand wrote: post #9
awjr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.

Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. More cars and less cyclists ultimately results in less safe conditions for cyclists.

>>>>> Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car.

I'm actually astounded by this. I grew up in a fairly typical suburban neighborhood, and everybody walked to school. A few weeks before I started kindergarten, my mom walked me to school, to make sure I knew the way. The kids who got driven to school, were teased for it.

Today, every kid in that neighborhood gets driven. There's a long line of cars in front of the school, and the amount of traffic is cited as a reason why it's no longer safe to walk.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#18

Post by alrs »

cpearce wrote: post #8

My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.

You are guided by faith, not data. You wore a helmet when you crashed, and you lived. You also wore socks and underwear.

EDIT: I realize that there is no debate, as I will "never convince (you) they're a bad idea." I'm talking to the people who are coming at this with an open mind.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#19

Post by alrs »

shasheene wrote: post #15

Correlation does not imply causation - the observed 75% reduction of cycling among children aged 5-17 (from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week) from 1989/90 to 2005/08 coincides with the increase in popularity of internet/video games etc (and I believe, a drop in all forms of outdoor activity) Also this article is 3 years old and should probably be appended with [2012]

This has been observed across time and across the world.

Alberta, Canada. Ten years later, same result:

http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#20

Post by thedragonaut »

Mithaldu wrote: post #12
thedragonaut wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are. In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars leading to a massive growth in car ownership. More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the road, cycling becomes more dangerous. This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

You're overlooking one thing: The less cyclists are on the road the less car drivers will be used to their presence and on the lookout for them. This is the danger caused indirectly by helmet laws.

I was arguing that there wasn't a shift away from cycling due to helmet laws - but a shift toward driving due to other (largely economic) factors.

Of course, I agree that if "less cyclists are on the road the less car drivers will be used to their presence and on the lookout for them."

Post reply on HN