
Mandatory bicycle helmet law in New Zealand - awjr
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
======
maurits
Ugh, here we go again. I can see that modern government struggles with many
complex issues for which there are no foolproof or easy timely solutions, but
really, bicycles seem to bring out a specific kind of stupid.

It really is not rocket science. If you want to make cycling safe you need:

1) Physically separated bike lanes, also on junctions

2) Traffic laws that protect the weaker participant

Contrast this little video from New Zealand showing a car hitting a cyclist
and the police response [1], with a car right hooking 4 cyclists and causing a
"bruised knee" in the Netherlands [2].

This video shows some infrastructure considerations in Groningen, a major city
in the north [3] where incidentally I have yet to spot a single helmet or
highvis vest.

Not that helmets are without merit. There is quit a bit of scientific proof
that wearing leathers, helmets, neck restraints and 5 point seatbelt will
reduce the number of fatalities of car passengers.

[1]:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEgXQIAyGF8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEgXQIAyGF8)

[2]:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw)

[3]: [http://youtu.be/cWf5fbSUNAg](http://youtu.be/cWf5fbSUNAg)

~~~
hauk1
I do agree with your argument, but helmets helps with more than just car vs
bike accidents. People have an uncanny tendency to fall and injure themselves
without the help of a car.

Groningen and the Nederland dont have any hills to speak off, but when you get
to high speeds on a bike its good to be protected when you fall.

This law protects the biker against any trauma to the head while biking. Its
is very easy to wear a helmet and a great way to be a role model for younger
people.

~~~
Jemaclus
Yes, great point. I wear my helmet not because of fear of getting hit by a car
(because, let's face it, if a car hits me, there's likely a lot more to worry
about), but mainly because of all the times I've fallen _on my own_ (from
losing my balance, swerving to dodge something, getting a tire stuck in the
trolley tracks, etc), my head has almost always made contact with pavement. My
helmet has saved me from -- at the very least -- a painful bump on the head,
and more likely from concussions.

~~~
iluvuspartacus
Also if you get a decent helmet and you ride at a decent clip, 35km+, it
actually can be cooler. Your coiffed hair however may suffer.

------
awjr
It is interesting that the report is focusing on cycling in different age
groups. The law seems to have created a generation that does not cycle and
implies direct correlation to the health of this generation.

From the article: "It is noteworthy when analysing the decline in New Zealand
child cycling to consider Changes in body mass index in 11-12-year-old
children in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand (1989-2000) which found a 9.2% increase in
BMI during the 12 years, with the risk of overweight being 2.2 times greater
in 2000 than 1989 and the risk of obesity being 3.8 times greater. By 2006/07,
one in five New Zealand children were overweight and 8.3% were obese."

------
Tiktaalik
Bicycle helmets have their place, but I think it's clear (from this great
research and others) that that the method to achieve to greatest cycling
participation and safety is to build separated bike lanes. Helmets don't need
to be part of that solution.

~~~
Jemaclus
This argument presumes that the chief danger to cyclists is a vehicle, which
may or may not be the case. There are plenty of other dangers to riding a
bike. As others have noted, cyclists are very good at falling over of their
own accord, whether that's from dodging a pedestrian or animal crossing the
path, turning too sharply (or not sharply enough), slipping in the rain,
getting tires stuck in potholes, etc.

A vehicle does not have to be part of that problem.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
As also mentioned, a helmet, as well as other safety devices could help you in
a car as well. The could also help when walking down the street, jogging, in
the bath, gardening, etc. This doesn't mean that there needs to be a law, it
means that people need to be aware of the cost/benefits of using any kind of
safety device.

My personal experience with helmets is they have injured me more than they've
ever protected me in 35+ years of cycling. I've had two wasps fly through the
vent holes of my helmet and sting me while I was riding, while I have yet to
ever hit my head. I realize this is anecdotal, but I've never seen any
creditable story about helmet causing injury reduction vs. the state providing
better cycling infrastructure.

~~~
netc
I guess you are lucky. I had a fall which could had taken me to ER. It
happened when I was relatively new to road bike and tried to enter a drive way
like a car. Wheel of my bike trammed along the road and sidewalk (about 2
inches high). I lost balance, took a fall on concrete sidewalk. Right side of
my helmet took the hit. The impact was severe enough, it was dark (not pitch
dark) in front of my eyes for next few seconds. However, I was able to bike
back after 15 mins of rest. I can't imagine doing that without the helmet.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
Let me be more clear. My point wasn't "don't wear a helmet", my point was the
state doesn't need to pass a law to make helmet wearing compulsory. If the
government was serious about making cycling safer it would provide better
cycling facilities such as protected bike lanes and bike boulevards. People
should be able to make the helmet decision themselves.

With that said, I'm really sorry about your accident. I'm glad the helmet
protected you and hopefully your fall didn't dissuade you from future cycling.
As you get more comfortable riding, your chances of having a freak accident
like that will become less and less.

~~~
netc
Thanks. I do agree better infrastructure will make bike riding safer. In my
opinion helmet is to bike what seat belt is to car. In general, I'd agree that
people should make their own decisions and government do not need to make
laws. But I have met couple of families who do not care about seat belt, even
for their kids! How do you make such people understand the value of seat belt?
Helmet is perhaps in similar situation. Not everyone is able to understand the
value of safety devices and as a society we don't want them or their kids to
get injured. Making something a law allows other to help such families - we
can simply call out "it's a law"

------
jusben1369
I felt like I got dropped into the middle of a book with this. Is this
accurate?

1) Bicycle helmut laws are enacted 2) As a result, the amount of bicycling has
dropped in NZ precipitously 3) Leading to all sorts of negative things like
higher obesity and pollution 4) And the medical benefits aren't that
significant

Therefore mandatory bike helmut laws are more damaging than good?

~~~
drpgq
That's pretty much it. A great example of people wanting to do something and
think of the children all rolled into one.

------
neves
BTW, this is a site dedicated to show "evidences" that that bike helmets are
useless. I recommend this one to counter balance:
[http://www.bhsi.org/](http://www.bhsi.org/)

At least its statistics are a lot more confiable:
[http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm](http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm)

~~~
strathmeyer
They are useless, until the angry cars start hitting us in the head. We're
pretty good at it, most of us learned to ride as kids and have never fallen
off.

~~~
falcolas
Or until your tire fails and flings you off the bike. Or until your bike fails
and flings you off the bike. Or until you miss a feature in the road that
takes your bike out from under you.

All three have happened to me. I was just lucky that I didn't hit my head in
any of those incidents.

I had a friend fall while ice skating and hit his head. He died after a month
of being in a coma. Having this tragedy so close to me reminded me that I'm
not always in control, and anything I can do to limit the price of failing to
control the situation is worth it.

~~~
drpgq
I have fallen and hit my head after slipping on some ice.

------
jordan0day
Unintended consequences, ahoy!

I think most cyclists main fear is an accident due to collision with a vehicle
-- I wonder if self-driving cars will ultimately result in _fewer_ car trips
because _more_ people are riding their bikes, not wearing helmets.

~~~
arethuza
My own main fear when I commuted by bike was someone opening a car door in
front of me - I always made a point of staying a reasonable distance from
parked vehicles but as my commute went through the middle of a city this was
sometimes pretty difficult to do.

It would be good if self driving cars could use their sensors to detect
cyclists and other road users and warn passengers about opening doors.

------
elliottkember
I grew up in New Zealand. The interesting part for me is the social uptake of
this law - it was universally accepted and we were always told to wear
helmets. I don't think I ever saw anybody there riding a bike without a
helmet.

~~~
rjd
Yeah I grew up in New Zealand as well, and the article doesn't relate to any
experience I've ever seen. Its a case of correlation doesn't equal causation.

People don't ride bicycles in New Zealand because they have to wear helmets,
they don't ride them (or stop there kids from riding them), because the roads
and drivers are absolutely terrible. The drivers literally just push on
through like you aren't there.

If you say to anyone you ride to work, the first question you usually get is
"is it dangerous? do you have a good route?". Thats how people feel about
cycling, if you do it, then you might get seriously hurt.

Same thing in London by the way, I used to ride to work there. I got the same
style of response "Jeez, you're brave", "Roads are to dangerous for me to try
that". I felt way safer in London than I ever did in New Zealand though.
Something about constant traffic jams that lets you slip right through :)

------
VLM
Might be slightly counterproductive as supposedly some (small) fraction of
drivers actively discourage cyclist use of the road for whatever crazy reason.
So a study scientifically proving bicycle use will drop by a huge percentage
if you enact a helmet law will probably encourage the law amongst weirdos,
where weirdos are apparently a statistically significant percentage. In a two
party system locked around 45%/45% the opinion of 6% worth of nutcases drives
(get the pun?) the country.

Another huge issue not discussed about helmet laws is who's getting punished.
Anecdotally I am told the cops introduce young minorities to the crime of
"driving while black" by very selectively enforcing helmet laws based on the
cyclists skin color vs the average neighborhood skin color. So I can
fearlessly pedal around my neighborhood but my neighbor can't, unless he wears
a helmet. So there's black kids playing basketball at the white kids public
park, well, they better have bike helmets or else...

The other socioeconomic problem is some helmet laws involve rather substantial
tickets for the parents to pay... I can see a poor family being able to afford
a $25 goodwill bike, but kids being kids, going without food for a month
because one time the kid didn't put on his helmet means that kid isn't going
to be permitted to have a bike by any same parent. If not prevented from
owning a bike outright, maybe it gets sent to goodwill the first time the
parent has to pay the fine, or the first time the parent hears from another
parent about the draconian $500 fine and mandatory traffic court appearance.
There are some helmet laws that are mere municipal citations like a $5 parking
ticket, and some that are a traffic court moving violation, and more
importantly whatever garbage someone sees on TV about crazy California or
whatever will drive the perception is more important than the actual local law
(if any!).

After all, its all about safety and its "for the children(tm)" so a $1000 fine
should save twice the lives of a $500 fine, right?

------
davesmylie
Anecdotally, I was about 14 when this law came out. At the time probably about
300-400 of the 1200 kids at my college that biked to school. There were
multiple bike sheds and they were always packed.

Fast forward 20 years, and my son is now the one biking to school. I think
probably there are about 15-30 kids (out of about 800) that bike to school on
a regular basis. The single bikeshed is usually almost empty, and at least
half of the items in there are scooters (which are not affected by this law
afaik).

Probably loads of reasons that this is the case - more protective parents,
better school zoning rules (closer schools). Equally I know there are less
buses (ie no busses to my sons school). Seems possible to me that having to
wear an 'uncool' helmet has contributed to this huge reduction.

I bike to work everyday and have never had an accident, (but couldn't imagine
not using a helmet). I do wonder though about the cost of health terms of
having all these kids being driven to school instead of getting a daily bike
ride in...

------
Aloha
I don't really have trouble with mandatory helmet laws so long as they only
apply to minors. Motorcycle Mandatory helmet laws I'm sorta on the hedge
about. In the end, people should allow to do activities that are risky only to
themselves.

~~~
saalweachter
We don't live in a disconnected society; if someone falls on the side of the
road and cracks their head open, we don't leave them in the ditch to die, rot,
and disappear. We pick them up, take them to a hospital, provide acute medical
care, and potentially provide life-long care in the case of a disability. So
society has a strong interest in preventing injuries.

(Two asides: this doesn't address the efficacy issue, but if helmets prevent
injuries, then it is reasonable by the above argument to mandate their use.
Secondly, it is arguable that motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets provide
more to society through organ donation than they take in life-long medical
treatment.)

~~~
porges
Also NZ has universal no-fault accident insurance (ACC). If not wearing
helmets leads to higher costs then...

Motorcycle riders already pay higher registration fees due to the higher
likelihood of injury.

------
terapinterapin
It's far from proven that wearing a cycling helmet has a net benefit from a
safety view point. Helmets are useless above 13mph and not a lot of good at
low speeds. What's more, they may cause accidents as they can restrict vision,
or make riders slightly less responsible as they "feel" safer and consequently
take more risks. Rule number 1 for a cyclist is: don't have an accident. I
suspect helmet wearers have more accidents. I speak from experience having
been hit by a cyclist who didn't see me because his helmet restricted his
vision.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
> because his helmet restricted his vision

That's impossible with the most common type of bicycle helmets[1]. Full-face
helmets that look like those used on motorcycles should be restricted to
downhill cycling.

[1]:
[http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/recreational/](http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/recreational/)

------
nawitus
A mandatory bicycle helmet law also reduces cycling. Finland has a mandatory
bicycle helmet law, but there's no penalties for breaking it.

------
peterwwillis
Holy unorganized giant wall of infographics, Batman! Somebody desperately
needs to organize this page into a table of contents.

------
pjbrunet
Don't forget mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, protective eyewear, an unexpired
First Aid Kit, front light, tail light, reflectors, impact sensor so we know
if you crashed, GPS in case you get lost. Always carry extra batteries in case
your blinky things stop blinking. And training wheels are mandatory without a
biking license.

------
sneak
Bicycling, even with a helmet, strikes me as an irresponsibly risky activity.

Even minor concussions can cause significant neurological dysfunction, and
most bike helmets do nothing to protect against the sub-lethal variety.

~~~
agilebyte
Just 2x more _dangerous_ than walking.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort#Additional](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort#Additional)

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
By the premisses of that article, I suggest bicycling should be taxed about
$5/mile [0], to properly internalize the risk of death. Not just to counter
ignorance/apathy, but because of the external costs of death to family, other
people, and the broader economy. And maybe a separate surcharge to account for
social health costs treating preventable injury.

[0] using the article's valuation of $50/micromort; 10 miles/micromort =>
$5/mile

~~~
VLM
A couple datapoints, my home town charges $10/yr for a bike license sticker
which is legally required to ride a bike in town (although rarely enforced
against white people and/or kids)

Also the DNR maintains a network of state wide bike trails and charges
something near $30/yr for an annual trail pass.

Also you'd have to discount the $5/mile by the effect of exercise. Perhaps its
net effect is only 50 cents per mile for adults. In that case we may already
be taxing bikes nearly that much, at least on average.

People laugh at me when I say bicycles are probably going to be outlawed for
children soon. I'm cool with that; they laughed when I said smoking would be
outlawed too. It is probably safer to buy a kid a lawn dart set or some packs
of matches than a bicycle, and I'm just being honest about a minor hobby of
mine. You can stack their little bodies like cordwood every year across the
country, seems like a lot of death for fundamentally not accomplishing too
much.

------
stefantalpalaru
I would not associate wearing helmets with the increased injury rate. Was
there an increase in the number of cars on the road?

