Newsgroups: soc.culture.new-zealand
Subject: Re: Kevlar vests to be made COMPULSORY for pedestrians in NZ
From: graeme@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz ( Graeme Moffat)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:36:30 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

>On Friday it was announced that after an investigation into road
>safety that (a) a zero-alchol limit would not be imposed as it was
>unrealistic and (b) cyclists would be forced to wear helmets.

So rather than do something positive (but which is likely to arouse howls of
protest from thousands of people) to prevent 100's of deaths/injuries they
opt for the socially soft option of trying to prevent one or two.
Sweden has a 0 alcohol limit, I heard a very interesting talk on the
National program by someone involved in their road safety work, who was
rather appalled by our road toll.
And what a pathetic excuse for not introducing it until 1994 - to give
families time to budget to buy helmets! If they're genuinely concerned with
reducing the road toll, then it should come in asap.
BTW, I'm totally against the compulsory wearing of helmets by those of us
capable of making decisions about our own personal safety - about 90% (my
estimate) of recreational riders wear them now anyway. The problem area is
the 7-15 year olds, make it compulsory for them. Many schools quite rightly
have a "no helmet, no bike" policy.

>Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity (certain types might
>be, such as racing, but general cycling is not). As such people should

Can't agree. Racing is less dangerous than just riding around the streets,
look at where the bicycle accidents occur. They usually involve cars, &
school age kids. When racing, we tend to try to keep away from cars :)
If I did hit the road, I'd rather be run over by a bike going the same way
than a car any day :)

>Will such an action reduce the road toll? Maybe, but probably not the

Stuff all

>(I should point out that I am an experienced London UK cyclist and
>have been involved in serious accidents. I do not think people should
>not wear helmets [though their protection is not very much and they
>give a certain amount of false security]. It is interesting to note
>that my 5 year old son never thought of cycling as dangerous when we
>lived in London, despite the tales of near disaster and the accidents.
>A short while after coming to Palmerston North, a small town of merely
>70K compared to the 6M of London and much quieter roads, he decided
>that cycling was dangerous after the barrage of propaganda which
>results in children wearing helmets when riding around the garden!)

Hey, you never know when a tile might blow off the roof :)
There's a large number of 4-6 year olds who wear absolutely useless helmets,
but they tend to ride only around home or on the footpaths, so I guess
they aren't in any great danger unless it's from a skateboarding 15 year old. 
The important thing is getting them to accept wearing them.

>Come on what do you Kiwi's think?

Want to know the real reason for Storey pushing this through? He's just come
back from looking at the Oz setup, where he found out that in the first
year, 13000 cyclists were fined $35. Work that out! Should pay for his
pension, at least.

-- 
Graeme Moffat                g.moffat@aukuni.ac.nz \ Time wastes us all, 
Computer Aided Design Centre,  Fax: +64-9-366-0702 /  our bodies & our wits
School of Engineering,    Ph: +64-9-737-999 x8384 /  But we waste time,
University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland, NZ \   so time & we are quits
Newsgroups: soc.culture.new-zealand