Photo: Amsterdamize
If these bike lovers were in New Zealand or Australia they would be breaking the law.
Forcing people to wear helmets, discourages them from riding. Helmets give the illusion that riding a bike is dangerous. The compulsory helmet law is having the effect of presenting the wrong message.
There are some of types of cycling for which wearing a helmet should be mandatory. Those types of cycling are also the ones that require specific clothing. But there are people who might ride a bike for short, local trips if there was some choice about whether a helmet was necessary. With more of these wheeled pedestrian types out and about, it would provide more impetus to develop a safe bicycling network. This normalised version of cycling would help to spread a different story; that riding a bike is easy, safe and accessible.
If you would like to see more people riding bikes, you can join Freedom Cyclists in their bid to reform the Compulsory Helmet Laws of New Zealand and Australia.
Repealing helmet laws will give people a choice, and remove the barrier for those occasions when a person decides to ride without a helmet.
Discouraging cycling is bad for public health because the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a large factor—including when not wearing a helmet.
There is a petition for helmet law reform that you can sign, here. You can also read media coverage of the campaign here.
On a related matter, a Christchurch entrepreneur has recently undertaken to set up a bike rental scheme in the city. It is a replica of the Auckland Nextbike scheme that was a temporary fixture on the Auckland transport landscape.
It is safe to say that the scheme will struggle in Christchurch just like it did in Auckland. Bike sharing schemes and a compulsory helmet law are like water and oil; they don’t mix. For a story of what a successful bike sharing programme looks like then you can read this article in the New York Times, aptly entitled, ‘To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets’.
Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits.
Well that’s according to Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1.
Cycling. It’s as easy as walking, but faster….
You can follow the #wheeledpedestrian on Twitter- @wheeledped or check out The Wheeled Pedestrian’s photostream (with accompanying ruminations) on Flickr.
Thanks for the links. Remove the fear and normalise cycling, can’t happen soon enough.
Wow! That’s crazy! I high five my partner and son all the time when we cycle! PLEASE let’s get some better cycling networks and then I might consider leaving my helmet at home.
you know what promotes the idea that cycling is dangerous? Ignorant car drivers who run into, or “nearly hit” cycles/motorcycles and then claim it isnt their fault and that cycling is dangerous.
Helmet laws would pale in comparison – and besides, if bike sharers provide a helmet with each bike, its not even a problem. Only selfish or irresponsibly people would not ride because they have to wear a helmet. Its just excuses imho.
Geoff, bike share schemes providing helmets? Would you wear a helmet that has the sweat and lice of a thousand unknown users? Mandating helmet use encourages people to see cycling as being dangerous, should helmet use be mandatory for pedestrians given the similar likelihood of serious injury that they face? Only selfish or irresponsible people would not walk because they have to wear a helmet. It’s just excuses IMHO.
Morgan,
Ever played paintball? They provide helmets – which carry the swear and lice of a thousand unknown users as well.. no one complains, because they value their heads.
You just give the helmet a wash in some detergent and let it dry for a few mins and give it to the next person… honestly.. hardly a real complaint at all.
Also, appealing to the unrelated is a fallacy. Cycling and walking are not the same thing (other than being modes of transport), in the same way driving a truck and walking are not the same thing.
I’ve ridden with or without a helmet (in fact I forgot mine the other day and rode from the CBD to Manurewa without it), and yes, it felt great not to be wearing it. However I would never suggest that people should not wear one. Personally, I think people should be allowed to choose, but that’s beside the point. Raving on about how it makes cycling “appear” more dangerous just makes people think it’s more dangerous.
Paintball? That’s a minority/recreational activity if I’ve ever heard one. It has no potential to become a normal everyday activity integrated into daily life, like cycling does. ‘Bye darling, I’m paint balling to work/the shops/the library now.’
Cycling will stay as the minority/recreational activity it currently is with that kind of thinking.
I dunno.. I have a paintball gun at home.. doesnt everyone? I also have 5 bikes, a motorcycle, 3 crash helmets and 2 cycling helmets and a big black dog.
(I have no idea why the last sentence is relevant, but.. oh well
)
The pushbike helmet law has been a disaster for BIKE SHARE SCHEMES, utility cycling, tourism, the economy, health, safety, the environment, democracy, freedom and civil liberty.
Attempts to set up bike share schemes in Porirua and Palmerston North in the 1990s floundered due to the helmet law. The Auckland bike share scheme failed and closed in 2010.
Ratepayer funded bike share schemes in Brisbane and Melbourne are performing poorly because of the helmet law.
The bicycle helmet law has robbed us big time. SCRAP THIS EVIL LAW!
The Auckland harbor bridge should never have been built without a cycleway.
Chris,
I have heard lots of people _say_ that helmet law is responsible for the downfall of cycle share schemes, but I have never seen any one point out any proper analysis of why these businesses have failed in NZ – only anecdotal evidence.
I some how doubt that it is the only reason, main reason, or even close to the top of the reasons why they fail. Might be on the list though.
The compulsory helmet law came about because a boy on his bike was hit by a car and received permanent brain damage. If there was any justice in the world, that would have been the point in time when cars were banned, or speed limits of 30kph would have been introduced, or ….
The bicycle helmet law is definitely the main reason bike share schemes fail or perform poorly in Australia and New Zealand. Israel and Mexico city have already repealed their pushbike helmet laws to allow bike share schemes to operate successfully. An article from BICYCLE HELMET RESEARCH FOUNDATION states that bicycle helmet laws discourage the safest cyclists. This is recent research from Norway. Pushbike helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling. This is bad for public health and leads to less demand for better, safer conditions for cycling. The pushbike helmet law has reduced the quality of life and has put a curse on NZ and OZ. SCRAP THIS EVIL LAW!
Auckland harbor bridge WITHOUT A CYCLEWAY is a curse on the city of Auckland.