I have been contacted by several people about the email that I received from NZTA about the ‘compulsory helmet law only applicable to bicycles’ fact. So I thought I would put it ‘out there’ as it seems that quite a few policemen are unaware of this particular aspect of NZ law.
I just love the final tag line on this email … ‘Please consider the environment before printing this email’, but hey, lets have a few more of those roads of national significance!
And the definition of a bicycle is? I know it's an obvious point but if there isn't a legal definition you could carry a small wheel and call it bi+1cycle or something and not have to wear a helmet.
It is weird that you can skateboard helmet-less on the open road quite legally (i.e the Bombay Hills headline grabbers) but you can't cycle though the viaduct at a leisurely pace without head protection.
Actually, it looks like you CAN ride through the viaduct without a helmet, so long as you are not riding on the road. That is an interesting part of the law I hadn't noticed before, that is specifically says a bicycle on the road. So, theoretically, if I ride on the cycle path from my house to the city I don't need a helmet?
That interpretation of "road" was always my thought too until it was pointed out to me that the legal definition of road in the various Transport Rules includes "a street; a motorway; a beach; and a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not…". This incredibly broad definition for "road" is (I think) so that people can't drive recklessly in places away from a normal road either. However it also potentially means that public off-road cycleways (e.g. through a park) also fall under the helmet laws.
Likewise, it is interesting that there is a legal definition of "cycle" in the Road Rules (which seems to be a reasonable one), but none for "bicycle". So it's not clear whether an extra small wheel on your bike would necessarily exclude it from a legal interpretation of a bicycle.
Unfortunately in both cases, there is no case law that has tested these issues, so unless somebody wants to give it a try…
i'm loving Chris's take on this.
But one way or another I dont' think anything is going to change without some overt confrontation – a long the lines of http://www.situp-cycle.com/2011/05/20/punk-commute/
Very interesting. I'm currently really frustrated. I have a 2 month old baby and a 4 year old and was hoping to be able to transport them to kindy etc on my bike. The 2 month old is the stumbling block -She's too young to sit up in a bike seat with a helmet. There was a law change in 2004 that added a helmet requirement for passengers in a trailer. I could import Weber infant insert for a trailer which I would feel happy about her being in, but wearing a helmet as well would force her head forward and restrict her airway, and I can't buy a helmet to fit her here anyway! Yes I do have a car, but why should I be effectively banned from biking? LTSA states that the law change was because passengers in a trailer are at the same risk of head injuries from a fall as the rider. What rubbish. The risk of "falling" (which is not really possible from a trailer anyway) cannot be the same if you're sitting under 30cm above the road. Do I try applying for a 12 month exemption?
Andrea: Far be it from me to incite massive outbreaks of lawlessness, but the reality is that one in ten kiwi cycle riders are already lidless.
I have been this way for a year and never been so much as bothered by the law, who I'm sure have better things to be getting on with. If such a thing should happen, I have a copy handy of the UK research on risk compensation (cars coming 8cm closer to the helmeted). If I should be approached, it's a worst case of a $55 ticket, and a chance to engage with the machinery of the state.
In contrast, Australia has a very aggressive enforcement, but even then the likes of the folks at http://www.sydneycyclist.com/group/helmetlessriders with and without offspring, are making the most of their legal interactions to point out the sheer assery of the law.
Upshot: It seems like the best policy is to do the right thing for you and your family, in the situation, and in the bigger picture. If that's wearing a helmet, cool. If its not – the law is not really a major consideration when the stakes (your children's future environment – in every sense) are so high.
You could look at getting a cargo bike, like they have in Europe. They come up occasionally on Trademe and I believe there is also an importer of such things in NZ. You can certainly get them form OZ and they are more than happy to ship them over. Given that the pedicab passengers are not legally obliged to wear a helmet, I am absolutely certain that your children (and yourself) would not be legally required to wear one ie you would not be breaking any law if you decided not to wear one. I have to admit that the 'law' aspect of it used to bother me but the best thing that ever happened to me was being pulled over by the police and given a mild warning after which they let me carry on 'lidless'. It was not anywhere near as scary as I thought it might be so this has removed my concern about 'being pulled over' – the other stuff is just money and I consider this to be more of a sort of tax for riding a bicycle (one I have not yet had to pay in more years than I care to think about)!
I ride lidless – but I do have securely fastened to my body an approved helmet – and thus not in breech of the law.
Nowhere in the Land Transport User Rules or in the interpretation section does it state that the helmet must be worn on your head.
I carry the relevant section of the Act with me and was once stopped by the Police. They were giving me a warning that I need to wear it on my head. I passed them the paper and asked where does it say on my head. He basically said yeah good point. If it is not explicity written down as such in the law it is not illegal.
"If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law."
Lord Camden