6 ms·

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

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.

awjr 12y ago
Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.
- thedragonaut 12y ago
  Yes, their parents drive them about until they're 15 when they get their first car.
- nzealand 12y ago
  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.
  - analog31 12y ago
    >>>>> 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.
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      When I went to school, the bike racks were large and jammed with bikes. These days, there's maybe one 6 foot rack for the whole school, with 3 bikes in it.
- thedragonaut 12y ago
  Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988 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."
  - aidos 12y ago
    I don't think that totally stacks up though. A decline in injuries at the time of the introduction of the laws is natural - there was a lot of campaigning and awareness at the time. 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.
    - WildUtah 12y ago
      "Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working." Based on funding and who advocates these laws, a substantial amount of advocates are supporting them in order to clear the roads to promote motoring. I'd say that's working just fine.
Mithaldu 12y ago
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.
- thedragonaut 12y ago
  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."
abandonliberty 12y ago
I would love to see the two datasets side by side

awjr 12y ago

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

thedragonaut 12y ago
Yes, their parents drive them about until they're 15 when they get their first car.
nzealand 12y ago
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.
- analog31 12y ago
  >>>>> 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.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    When I went to school, the bike racks were large and jammed with bikes. These days, there's maybe one 6 foot rack for the whole school, with 3 bikes in it.
thedragonaut 12y ago
Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988 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."
- aidos 12y ago
  I don't think that totally stacks up though. A decline in injuries at the time of the introduction of the laws is natural - there was a lot of campaigning and awareness at the time. 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.
  - WildUtah 12y ago
    "Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working." Based on funding and who advocates these laws, a substantial amount of advocates are supporting them in order to clear the roads to promote motoring. I'd say that's working just fine.

Mithaldu 12y ago

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.

thedragonaut 12y ago
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."

abandonliberty 12y ago

I would love to see the two datasets side by side