21–30 of 50 posts
Any chance to repeal this law?
Look behind the big bicycle advocacy organizations in the United States and you'll see serious funding from the American Automobile Association and bicycle companies. I assume the situation in NZ is similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
And ultimately a net decrease in head injuries doesn't mean that much when there are many other injuries with cycling generally being more dangerous.
I'm just a single data point but I stopped cycling in nz after they introduced the fines for being caught without a helmet. I've cycled daily in London for years now an it's a much safer place to cycle. My feeling is that's generally due to the awareness from having a lot of cyclists on the road. Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working.
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.
Any chance to repeal this law?
The problem is that these laws are pushed by the insurance and auto lobbies specifically to discourage cycling. Look behind the big bicycle advocacy organizations in the United States and you'll see serious funding from the American Automobile Association and bicycle companies. I assume the situation in NZ is similar.
Would you rather cycle helmet-less on the road or helmeted on a dedicated cycle path?
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]
I realise that Denmark and the Netherlands are the 'exceptions' to the rule, because there cycling is used to actually get places rather than for fun. But I know Denmark has no strict helmet laws. Not sure about the Netherlands.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But this isn't shown by the article. Cycling dropped, but there is no indication that this was caused by helmet laws. A much more detailed study would be required to determine the cause of reduced cycling.
At some point you just have to accept the evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that these laws are pushed by the insurance and auto lobbies specifically to discourage cycling. Look behind the big bicycle advocacy organizations in the United States and you'll see serious funding from the American Automobile Association and bicycle companies. I assume the situation in NZ is similar.
More like, the auto-lobby pushes motor vehicle infrastructure at the expense of cycling infrastructure. Would you rather cycle helmet-less on the road or helmeted on a dedicated cycle path?
I also live in California, where case law has determined that government is never responsible for injuries that occur off the road and on a bike path.
Additionally, it is flat-out unethical to ride faster than 10mph if you're weaving through pedestrian foot-traffic.
The auto lobby loves cycle infrastructure. It gets cyclists off the road.
My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this isn't shown by the article. Cycling dropped, but there is no indication that this was caused by helmet laws. A much more detailed study would be required to determine the cause of reduced cycling.
Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The results of this study are completely unsurprising to anyone who has read any other study of helmet laws in his/her life. At some point you just have to accept the evidence.
The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it?
Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.)
Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.)
Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than seat belts, and yet most people aren't arguing against seat belt laws.)
Essentially, I'm not against accepting the validity of the evidence from these studies. I'm simply against the mentality of "mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, therefore we must not have mandatory helmet laws." That conclusion is too simplistic. The topic requires further study.