Wearing a helmet will never look cool, however you try to sell it.
Spooky stuff, this. Fear mongering in the name of marketing. If the person promoting this message cared so much, the t-shirt would be given away, free. That would be the honourable thing.
It’s the Grey Lynn phenomenon apparently; “hipster youths riding their bikes around town”. According to the person(s) resposnsible for printing this tee, the act of cycling is fine (wow) but it is the lack of protective headgear that grinds his/her gears. Misinformed parents have not being fulfilling their responsibilities, so someone has to step up and take responsibility. The youth of today are going to Hell in a hand cart and all that…
While the helmet is promoted as an essential safety tool, cycling will always remain a marginalised transport option. Sports cyclists racing round doing dangerous sporty things should always wear helmets, no question. But a pedestrian on wheels, rolling down a quiet residential road to the local school/shops/library is a different bucket of bolts all together.
While the cycling fraternity argues over the merits of helmets and hi viz vests, the real issue remains at large. It’s all just tinkering around the edges and cycling will continue to appear dangerous and only appeal to the current minority. Or if the majority of people are correct when they say cycling really is dangerous, why not do something to make it less dangerous? Speed reduction comes to mind.
It wasn’t so long ago that smoking was seen as socially acceptable. It’s great that some enlightened souls took on the might of corporate tabacco.
Maybe the motoring lobby will also be challenged one day. But in the meanwhile, the helmet remains a useful distraction. Useful to the motoring lobby, that is.
Cycling. It’s as easy as walking, but faster….
And yet, I don't think it's an issue we need to agressively pursue right now.
Plus, even in a country like Germany, helmet wearing rates are 60%-plus, if I remember a recent article right. So it's not as if helmets automatically prevent a mass cycling culture, even if they are, agreed, a hindrance.
When was the last time you saw a child "rolling down a quiet residential road" as you put it?
I'm dead against helmet laws but I do insist my children to wear them. Kids are risk-takers, are still developing bike-handling skills, fail to recognize potential hazards and always ride as fast as possible!
I'm sure you'd find even in "enlightened" European cycling cultures a large percentage of children would be lidded.
Antoine: I can report from Amsterdam/the Netherlands that most of kids that wear helmets (0.001% of all people on bikes, by estimation) have expat parents…
All Dutch cycling orgs & our gov oppose pushing/promoting/legislating helmet wear for any age. <a href="http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2011/04/28/creating-cyclists-start-em-young/">Cycling is not dangerous</a>. Culture of fear is.
@max – I've lived and travelled all over Germany during the last 10 years and have never seen helmets on more than 5% of cyclists (outside those racing or mountain biking)
The "one size fits all" promotion of safety for cyclists ignores the fact that a cyclist is not a cyclist is not a cyclist. As the author rightly points out, sports cyclists and slow utility riders are very different beasts indeed. Because bike policy in anglo countries is very much geared towards catering for the former (and their high-speed commuting imitators), the latter are left with the kind of laws and infrastructure totally unsuited to their style of riding. The helmet law is the most absurd one of all.
Antoine, you can travel up and down the Netherlands for the rest of your life and you will not find a helmet on a Dutch child. They don't wear them because the Dutch know that cycling is not a dangerous activity.
That is very interesting, perhaps helped by the separated cycle paths in Holland? I'm not suggesting helmets for adults, it's the younger riders I was thinking of.
In my part of the world (the North Shore of Auckland) cyclists are an uncommon sight on the roads and specific bicycle infrastructure is emerging but not of a high standard.
Riding on the road with my kids they are only separated from Auckland's terrible drivers by a strip of paint, and when you get to an intersection it is every man for himself.
Being Kiwi kids any type of ride will involve some mountainbiking, jumping something their bike was not designed for and BMX tricks that looked easy on You-Tube but aren't so easy in real life! I'm happy for them to wear helmets in these situations.
I must say, it is nice to have an international perspective on the helmet issue. Sometimes i get the feeling that Auckland cyclists view themselves as a different breed and are immune to international trends. Auckland cycling would do well to look further afield for examples of how to grow cycling in Auckland. Check out the Amsterdamize website…it is very inspirational.
This article says it really, helmets and even riding style are a total side issue. It's Auckland that has to change.
Helmet discussions, t shirts and whether infrastructure benefits commuters or utility cyclists is just divisive 'tinkering around the edges'.
Every time the cycle debate comes up I am reminded of this video.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/why-we-should-not-wear-bike-helmets.php
It is very hard to deny that helmets make cycling look dangerous. It makes it very easy for people to use the "cycling is dangerous excuse".
(Personally I wear a helmet most of the time, unless I'm rollin' along the waterfront on my cruiser.)
That was supposed to be cycle helmet debate, but for some reason I can't edit my posts.
Interesting link. Quote "The helmet wars are a diversion from the real problem: Lousy bike infrastructure putting cyclists in the same space as lousy drivers…"
Jim, you've hit the nail on the head. The pro-helmet lobby is completely blind to this issue, preferring to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. You could also say that critical police resources are being wasted booking helmetless cyclists while much more serious offenses are going undetected. I'm yet to hear a rational argument from the helmet brigade on how this law has had a positive effect on reducing car/bike accidents, which cause the head injuries in the first place.
Not really what I was getting at Cycleadagio, I was saying the helmet, high vis, or style of cycling discussion is just a distraction from the real problem.
Auckland is too broken for many beginner cyclists to ride in, that's the problem. It's not even the perception that it's dangerous, it's the inherent safety of it, that only infrastructure can bring.
The above article and the link also provided both highlight that to me.
You're either for cycling, or against cycling when it's distilled to that basic an issue.
So fixing Auckland, or the "death star" as used in the article, should be the focus.
So whadarewegunadoaboudit?
Jim,
I agree. Helmets are a diversion. But neither do I think that putting all efforts into physical infrastructure (such as separated paths) will achiueve the cycling renaissance we want. At times a cultural/attitude shift towards cycling would make a big diffrence. The cultural element is something that is largely ignored in Auckland.
max I don't know where you get you figures from but they don't square with my experiences of visiting Germany, yes there are some who wear helmets but no where near 60% in towns for utility cycling.
Far to much of the helmet promotion is about <a href="http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1407">victim blaming</a> and ignores the real issues around safety. Helmets are as reliant to cycling safety as they are to walking safety (the risk levels are equivalent) and how many people wear a helmet to walk?
max I don't know where you get you figures from but they don't square with my experiences of visiting Germany, yes there are some who wear helmets but no where near 60% in towns for utility cycling. It is only really sports cyclist that wear them.
Far to much of the helmet promotion is about <a href="http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1407">victim blaming</a> and ignores the real issues around safety. Helmets are as reliant to cycling safety as they are to walking safety (the risk levels are equivalent) and how many people wear a helmet to walk?
I don't know about you, but I can't walk at 50km/h! I agree the standards and accepted testing on bicycle helmets is done at walking pace.. I see your point.
Anyone care to comment on why the public bike scheme failed so miserably in Auckland?
Possibly something to do with the perception that cycling is dangerous, and being litigated to wear a common headgear? I am reminded of a recent post that talked about Dublin where there is no helmet law, people still choose to wear helmets, and their public bike scheme is a world success story.
It always seems to come back to too many selfish drivers on the road that aren't ready to accept that they could improve a little bit in their attitude.
I amaze myself at how much my style of driving has changed since I started riding a bike as an adult. Now I am constantly looking for bad drivers, I leave long following distances, let people in on the motorway, drive slowly around town, let pedestrians cross in front of me, never use my horn in aggression. Most of all now I know how to overtake a bike – the correct way.
If only everyone could get on a bike and do a lap around town. (Especially the bus and taxi drivers – Wellington has done this already as a publicity stunt)
The 'public' bike scheme was run by a private company with no central government/local government funding. It didn't fail 'so miserably' as much as not pay its way for the private owners. Such a bike scheme could be aligned with all other public transport options and be subsidised by local government.
I don't know, but I think the overseas public bike systems are run by local government.
Auckland council now has tenders out to reinstate the bike scheme during the world cup with funding. Short sighted that they didn't fund the interim shortfall to maintain public awareness and momentum.
Again, nothing to do with helmets.
I think it is more about having to ride where everything else on the road is going 50-60km/h that intimidates people from starting. Doesn't matter what you wear if you are scared of traffic travelling at speed and you are forced to ride on the road. People forget not everyone lives in a quiet well-to-do suburban neighbourhood, probably the majority don't.
Going by the arguement that helmets don't make you safer, then the helmet arguement is a non issue for safety so forget about it, it is the safety of riding where we are forced to ride that is the issue.
@Jim This video (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/11/bike-share-battlin-dublin-v-melbourne.html) touches on the relationship between helmet laws and public bike share. I definitely recommend watching this if you believe part of the bike share failure wasn't to do with compulsory helmets.
I agree with all your other statements. Especially your comment regarding AC and its short sightedness… Why supply public bikes for visitors of the city for a couple of weeks?! Come on!
Its hard to deny that if you come off a bike and you are wearing a helmet, you are probably going to sustain less injury than not wearing one right? But forcing people to wear them is putting the legal responsibility of safety onto the victim! Like teaching kids that they must always wear a helmet, and if they don't they could get hurt and it will be all their fault! Never mind blaming the person that ran them down.
More emphasis should go into making the roads safe for cyclists regardless of how much body armor you are wearing. We should be safe not wearing anything! So I definitely agree with you here!
It is a very frustrating situation. If there were more bikes on the road, people in cars would become used to driving with cyclists, and it would therefore be less intimidating. Authorities would be forced to provide more infrastructure too!
But on the flip side, those potential bike riders are still using the "it's too dangerous" (intimidating) excuse, and no money gets spent on infrastructure.
Which is going to come first? More people on bikes or more infrastructure?
Should have mentioned the helmet related section of the video starts about 3:50 ish.
@Alan, I agree, 'putting the legal responsibility of safety onto the victim!' is the problem…this is pervasive in our society and is the antithesis of a people friendly city. This is what needs to be challenged.
Without wading too deep into this argument – I believe its fair for the key healthcare stake holder to ask for legislation to prevent unnecessary expenses. e.g. Helmets preventing costly head injury; What I'm more dubious about is the research regarding the effectiveness of the pedal cycle design specifically within our region.
The research I've come across seems more related to motorcycle helmets/accidents, and we are also left with no idea of whether its appropriate to apply the research findings in NZ.
I'd argue from a purely speculative position, that we'd see a greater net saving on healthcare by removing helmet laws, and having more folks riding bikes. But we need to follow the data here – There's plenty of dogma on boths sides, and its about time NZ commissioned some research, to solve an NZ dilemma.
Hi Alan,
I've read the submissions by the Auckland bike share company about why it didn't work when seeking funding from Auckland Council. I don't believe helmet use was mentioned, they focussed on the positives including the growth of use.
Infrastructure or cyclists? chicken or egg eh? I think people that are scared of riding in traffic will not ride, even if they see more cyclists, with or without helmets. I think they need to see it as in a safe place and fun, and then they'll think about starting. Build it and they will come.
Where I ride, seeing someone riding on a road with 50-60km/h traffic going past isn't going to make the kids, parents, grandparents we are all looking to get onto bikes think that riding around is safe. Say they see someone with a helmet? They won't be keen because the traffic is going too fast. Say they see someone without a helmet? They still won't be keen because the traffic is still going too fast. Taking away the helmet doesn't give me or them the impression that cycling in this environment is any safer.
It's not about the helmets.
Fast roads and skinny paths dominate around Auckland.
There are those that have the luxury of riding in suburbs with slow traffic, cycle lanes and wide paths. That environment is inherently 'safer' looking to the beginner.
So why not get the rest of Auckland looking that way if we want more beginners to start?
Interesting ideas here on how to get infrastructure plans and funding through. Note the inclusive nature, including pedestrians. http://momentumplanet.com/articles/battle-of-the-bridge/page-2.html
You could work the motoring centric thinkers by convincing them infrastructure/bike lanes get cycles out of their way, a win/win…
I made my submission to the Auckland Council on the annual plan.
our "invisible" brethren, the on road (more often on footpath) BMXers seem to universally not wear helmets and get away with it!
Good on you Jim!
The more people we have asking for better infrastructure, the bigger our collective voice will be.
A great discussion here – I think we agree on a lot of these issues. But lets keep going and raise awareness.
What did you think of the comparison between the Dublin bike share and the Melbourne one? It is pretty hard to argue with those figures right?
Having a spouse who suffered a Brain injury (result of horse riding) a few years ago, I am totally convinced she is only alive because of her helmet, so I hope you don't think I am saying people shouldn't wear helmets when doing dangerous activities.
All I am pointing out is that wearing a helmet gives the impression riding a bike is dangerous, when in fact it is not. My opinion is the REAL danger comes from being hit by motorists – not the act of simply riding a bike.
Solution? I suggest we encourage better drivers on the road. The law is already there…
Land Transport Act 1998 No 110 (as at 01 February 2011), Public Act
Part 2 Primary responsibilities of participants in land transport system
Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous
(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, recklessly.
(2) A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.
Drivers not to be careless or inconsiderate
A person may not drive a vehicle, or cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons
So how do we get better drivers?
I believe we should encourage more people to get on bikes. More people on bikes will encourage a general change of attitude by motorists. They will start to pass correctly, drive slower, give way more and generally make cycling (and driving) safer for everyone. Cycling will become part of everyday culture.
As the drivers improve more people will ride bikes. We just need to get this chain reaction going.
The key I feel is to make it high profile, so the people that are riding bikes are visible and get seen by motorists every day. Hopefully more every day. Whether that is cruising along the foot path, on the road, along a cycle lane… where ever.
I totally agree Auckland needs more cycle lanes. I love riding around parts of Auckland I a haven't rode in a while to discover new cycle lanes!
I am not saying helmets are the only issue, it is just one of many issues facing us.
And one last thought, I uploaded this image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62234367@N04/5711777487/)
Which looks more dangerous? (Please ignore the fact it is Hannah Montana)
More cycle lanes please!
Alan, you say, "My opinion is the REAL danger comes from being hit by motorists – not the act of simply riding a bike".
I agree. I invite Auckland Transport employees to ride around the city with the 'eyes of a 10 year old' to see why so few cycle. A painted line for a cyclie path will rarely be enough to entice people to take up cycling.
@Simon
"'I'd argue from a purely speculative position, that we'd see a greater net saving on healthcare by removing helmet laws, and having more folks riding bikes."
I thought research showing that result was already available…Maybe it is international research rather than local?
What about safety in numbers as a reason to encourage cycling?
Just had a good look around Marc's http://amsterdamize.com/
What a great blog and not a helmeted child in sight!
@Jim: I live in one of your stereotyped “quiet well-to-do suburban neighbourhoods” and my experience is that traffic flows a lot slower in the CBD, be that Takapuna or downtown Auckland.
I've loved reading this discussion. I haven't been using my bike as my main mode of transport for too long, so the arguments about helmets are new to me.
When I took up cycling again, the helmet was a non-issue for me. As a kid I had learned that you HAVE to wear a helmet when cycling, the same way you HAVE to wear a seatbelt when in a car. It wasn't something that implied a higher degree of danger to me. The things that worried me about cycling was the cars I'd be sharing the road with.
Having seen the way other countries handle bike infrastructure (thanks to this awesome blog), I feel like that is truly where Auckland, and New Zealand is lacking. While I don't disagree that helmets can be a preventative attribute of cycling to some, I think it's the fact that we have to share the road with these 2 tonne machines that is where the real concept of danger comes in. Separated cyclepaths would do a lot towards removing a lot of the fears that cycling brings up, however unrealistic that might be.
as an aside – Kingsland Cycle way has been brilliant! Slow but steady growth in traffic
the Kingslnd cyclepath would be even better if it went all the way into the CBD. I hate the way it stops abruptly and just dumps you out on to the busy Q St. A chain is only as good as its weakest link-as they say.
Hey Reizar, check this link http://caa.org.nz/nzta/northwestern-cycleway-update/
And yep, I noticed the growth too, even after summer passed, and plenty of tracks on wet days too!