Comments on: We support helmet choice

By: Cyclomaniac

Cyclomaniac — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:28:08 +0000

Mandatory bicycle helmet law in New Zealand.. Less cyclists have been injured and have died since the introduction of the 1994 helmet law in NZ. But why?

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

By: Chris Glover Kapiti Coast NZ

Chris Glover Kapiti Coast NZ — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:06:26 +0000

I’m totally against helmet laws and pushbike helmets.

By: Cyclomaniac

Cyclomaniac — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:08:40 +0000

Some support for helmet choice from an unexpected source:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1408/S00296/acts-plan-to-double-cycle-use-without-spending-taxes.htm

I suppose we could contemplate doing both the $ 100 million investment and offer helmet choice.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:04:02 +0000

The last 2 comments seem to think that bicycle helmets are designed for high speed crashes of incidents involving motor vehicles. Unlike motorcycle helmets, they’re not! They make virtually no difference, and there’s a reason that the safest countries to ride a bicycle have no helmets or hi vis. In Europe, we learn how compulsory safety gear makes cycling more dangerous. In Germany, maybe 1 of every 7 or 8 bicyclist wear a helmet and that is considered a huge amount compared to elsewhere.

By: Dobbyn

Dobbyn — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:21:48 +0000

You’re kidding right? Please keep helmets as compulsory equipment.
While they are an ambulance as opposed to a fence, I’d rather have an ambulance than not.
OK, enough mangled metaphors.
If people are worried about the fashion statement of helmets, and if this view is seriously a barrier to cycle use, I agree with it. We want awake, alert people who share with care, not people who are worried about how they look. After all, who actually looks good on a bike?
I don’t want more people on bikes, I want more intelligent people on bikes.
If you’re too vain or stupid to acknowledge the role of an ambulance, stay in your car.
We must not endorse anything like ‘let he who rides decide’, and we must advocate for mandatory safety equipment.

By: Ti mbo

Ti mbo — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 01:10:50 +0000

Has anyone come across a kid who has been knocked off their bike, head speared into the gutter?
Has anyone seen the effect of a head hitting the ground at 45kph?
Has anyone felt the impact of being cut-up by a car turning left whiulst communting to work?
Has anyone heard of the “Darwin awards’?
Perhaps those who advocate not wearing a helmut also are secret creationists at heart?

By: mia m-b

mia m-b — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:23:29 +0000

biking what a bliss,moving to lyttleton,i discovered the joy of going down the hill, it’s fun ,however it s becoming more urgent ,that i get my brake fixed,i try the shop in colombo st but they cant help til 8 january,i heard someone fixe bike in lyttleton but the info office is stil closed .any suggestion ?

By: Chris Lynch

Chris Lynch — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:11:36 +0000

Hi folks, we’re discussing the issue of helmet wearing tomorrow! Love to get your calls on this after 8.40am on Newstalk ZB we’ll be on 03 340 10 98! Cheers!

By: Captain Haddock

Captain Haddock — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:44:30 +0000

You know I have had plenty of crashes on motorcycles and cycles and I have never hit my head on the ground. The body seems to naturally keep it from smashing as it is a sensitive area.

By: NigelToo

NigelToo — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:56:17 +0000

Peter, I see what your last comment was getting at now.

A marketing campaign is not a conspiracy, why would you think it is?

There is an ad on TV at the moment designed to sell hand wash, it shows a kid playing in the mud and has mum saying “I need to keep him safe for all those germs”. I bet you grew up playing in the dirt without needing special hand wash, I know I did 🙂 The ad is just selling a product by creating a perceived need. It’s not a conspiracy.

The helmet campaign was designed to create a perceived need for helmets, how do you do that? Well their choice was to make folks think cycling is dangerous, and they were very successful in doing that – decades later cyclists are still saying they need to be protected, and parents are stopping kids cycling because its too dangerous! It wasn’t a conspiracy, it’s just marketing.

In the early/mid 2000’s the LTNZ/LTSA (they change their name so often!) were charged with trying to increase cycling as part of then government policy. However it was rather hard as they’d just spent years telling everyone it was dangerous and at a public meeting in Christchurch they stated they’d “shot themselves in the foot” with the helmet campaign – a rare moment of honesty.

There was no conspiracy, just marketing which created a myth. And today we have cycle advocates who keep insisting on fueling that myth, as the LTSA would say “shooting themselves in the foot”.

Meanwhile every 30 mins the Government fines someone to maintain the myth… That’s not a conspiracy either, its politics.

[Donning flame suit :-)] The only possible conspiracy here would be a “conspiracy of silence” from CAN who implicitly support fining a cyclist every 30 mins…