What next?

August 10th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Calls are increasing for skiers to be required by law to wear a standards-approved helmet on the slopes following a number of fatal accidents.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

Tags: ,

96 Responses to “What next?”

  1. wreck1080 (3,522 comments) says:

    I’m still against bike helmets.

    More people will die from obesity than will die from wearing a bike helmet.

    You always know there are too many bureaucrats when they are making such stupid laws.

    Skiiers are just the next target. Stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The alliance of self serving bureaucrats, cowardly politicians and spineless partisan media is fast leading NZ into tyranny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. James (1,338 comments) says:

    This Labour government has got to go!

    Oh, wait….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lance (2,309 comments) says:

    Bloody simple really…
    Just make it that if you don’t wear a helmet doing something extreme (but only extreme- not run of the mill) then you get half or no ACC.
    That puts the responsibility back on the individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    No to compulsory ski helmets.

    Skifields should pay for any/all emergency services callouts to said skifield – cost to be covered by lift pass price. (I’m paying ACC levies on my car rego all the time, for the day I may eventually need to be rescued from a car crash and rehabilitated. Why should the fallout from non-essential, pointless high-risk hobbies that people opt into be state-covered?)

    [Re bike helmets - almost everyone uses the roads, so an increased general climate of safety benefits almost everyone. If (god forbid) a cyclist ever goes over my bonnet, I would rather see his crash helmet than his skull touch down on my windscreen. I have to keep my car warrantable, it isn't a lot to expect cyclists to wear helmets. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    James: exactly.

    The more things change…

    Pleased to see DPF resisting this latest nuttiness. His support for the Borrows Chatham bailout for living near fish was disappointing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Jibbering Gibbon (200 comments) says:

    “A teenager watched in horror as her mother fell to what was ultimately her death while the pair were skiing at Mt Hutt in Canterbury yesterday.

    The mother, 56, fell about 700m over rocks and down a valley just outside of the skifield’s boundaries. Ski patrol medical staff gave first aid where she was found, near a creek at the bottom of a gully.

    She was then airlifted to the ski area medical room and stabilised, before the Westpac helicopter flew her to Christchurch Hospital. She later died.

    Rescue helicopter spokesman Simon Duncan said the mother suffered serious head injuries, despite wearing a helmet. He said it was the second accident at the skifield in recent weeks.”

    In other news, swimmers at Australian beaches are being encouraged to wear chainmail during the summer. President of Sharks Alive! pressure group Daz Gobsworthy said yesterday, “People don’t realise the damage a shark does when it bites. Laboratory results show that chances of serious disfigurement can be reduced by up 50% wearing a full body suit of chain mail.

    When asked if the prevention was worse than the cure he replied, “Not at all. A pretty corpse is better than a disfigured one.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    RRM: ACC levies on vehicles are not cost-related, as far as I know. Drivers pay out of all proportion for ACC – driving is simply a low elasticity activity that is efficiently taxed.

    While I agree skiers should pay their way, government is simply incapable of building and keeping systems that do that. For government the question is not how much cost does that activity impose. It is: how much are they willing to bear? So rugby players under pay ACC, PC-bound employees badly overpay. And so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. bevanjs (34 comments) says:

    Exactly right James.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I have to keep my car warrantable, it isn’t a lot to expect cyclists to wear helmets.”

    Spoken like a true lame little commie worm. Pack up and move to North Korea if that statement truly represents your contempt for concepts such as choice and personal responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. cabbage (454 comments) says:

    Erm. who is calling for helmets? I see no indication from the link that its the government.

    Either way, its a dumb call.

    Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    cabbage is right, the herald reports or the herald creates and drives?

    This has more to do with the effects of the nanny state and how difficult is going to be to root out the willing colaborators.

    My father nearly wet himself when I suggested my neices aged 7 and 8 stay at an overnight camp. I pointed out that at that age he was climbing cliffs and I was going out overnight into the bush.

    He said they were different times. I say we’ve MADE them different times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Spoken like a true lame little commie worm. Pack up and move to North Korea if that statement truly represents your contempt for concepts such as choice and personal responsibility.

    Whatever.

    If some part of my car failed and caused a crash that injured or killed somebody, I would feel guilty. You presumably wouldn’t in that situation, guided as you are by “MY freedom! MY rights!” and bugger all concern for anything else. Were you an only child?

    [But this has nothing to do with trying to enforce ski helmets on people... ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. francis (712 comments) says:

    And let’s require less pointy ski poles, as well, I say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    RRM

    If some part of my car failed and caused a crash that injured or killed somebody, I would feel guilty. You presumably wouldn’t in that situation, guided as you are by “MY freedom! MY rights!” and bugger all concern for anything else.

    But the analogy fails with respect to helmets. Nobody but the wearer is saved by a helmet.

    Nobody (except idiots) who call for freedom are asking for the right to murder without consequences. On the contrary – the argument is usually that with freedom goes responsibility and serious consequences for criminal behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “If some part of my car failed and caused a crash that injured or killed somebody, I would feel guilty.”

    I’d guess you’re a garage owner who gets his staple income from government enforced but often unnecessary warranty checks, or at the very least, an ignoramus who has yet to catch up with the simple fact that NZ’s ACC system is unsustainable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Just about the first sane comments thread I’ve ever seen on the Herald. Most people actually think this idea is ridiculous. Thank god, somebody in this country actually thinks, at some point, liberty is worth something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (6,690 comments) says:

    This is unnecessary legislation.

    With global warming there won’t be any ski slopes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Timdu (1 comment) says:

    Everyone should have to wear a helmet whenever they are going any faster than walking pace or going under anything. Its a small price to pay to avoid head injuries. Knee pads should also be worn when kneeling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mavxp (490 comments) says:

    Actually from the story of yesterdays tragic death on Mt Hutt, clearly the helmet didn’t save her.

    Perhaps from this one incident the “safety first” people in Wellington should make either base-jumping parachutes or a Luke Skywalker/ Batman utility belt with grappling hook compulsory for anyone considering having fun anywhere at any time – oh and a helmet.

    The irony is perhaps a false sense of security is afforded people who wear helmets, and their behaviour would adjust to be less dangerous for them and others if helmets were banned from ski fields.

    No I am not being entirely serious. Utility belts are cool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    What’s next?
    1. Reversing lights & beepers on prams
    2. ‘Caution – content hot’ labels on ovens
    3. ‘Do not run’ labels on scissors
    4. ‘Caution – nanny state socialists nearby’ label on National Party HQ
    5. Banning iPods while walking
    6. ‘Train approaching’ signs at Wellington commuter train stations (clearly aspirational…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    “often unnecessary”

    Actually it is unnecessary. The US doesn’t have warranties. You get your car fixed when it ain’t working, and you get it serviced and checked if you want it to. Which of course most people who care about their investment, themselves, their family and others, will do. Cars do now require smog checks in some states. But that’s it. The NZ warranty system is complete and utter over kill. You fail for rust that subsequently cannot be detected by mechanics, and that’s because somewhere somebody once had a car so rusty it did actually create a problem and the Herald ran with it. You fail because your car is slightly more noisy than it was off the production line – because of boy racers (or something). Nonsense on stilts, all of it.

    This is the state. It pretends to solve problems by forever taxing and inconveniencing the middle class.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    The irony is perhaps a false sense of security is afforded people who wear helmets, and their behaviour would adjust to be less dangerous for them and others if helmets were banned from ski fields.

    YES. Good point. The Peltzman effect. Plus the law of unintended consequences. Plus regulation begets regulation. Equals yet another fucking government disaster, more people dead not fewer. Etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    How about those windscreen chips, where you’re forced to shell out for a new windscreen when there is no visibility impairment even close to to that created by a small shower of rain??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Richard Hurst (710 comments) says:

    Lance (336) Says:

    August 10th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    “Bloody simple really…
    Just make it that if you don’t wear a helmet doing something extreme (but only extreme- not run of the mill) then you get half or no ACC.
    That puts the responsibility back on the individual.”

    Hear! Hear!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    This Labour government has got to go!

    Oh, wait….

    But wait ye conclusion jumpers, the report only says “Calls are increasing”, it doesn’t say who is doing the calling, and mentions no political party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Don the Kiwi (1,316 comments) says:

    Ronal Reagan gave us this gem.

    ” One of the most frightening things you can hear is: – We’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Oh FFS. The Herald calls Helmets to be worn, and the masses call for the government to be axed…
    The power of the 4th estate is compounded by the dumbfuckery of the citizenship. And the most surprising thing is those I would think would be more skeptical of the MSM seem to have opened wide and swallowed hook line and sinker!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    A couple of us have already noted that Pete. I’m looking at nanny herald.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    “Bloody simple really…
    Just make it that if you don’t wear a helmet doing something extreme (but only extreme- not run of the mill) then you get half or no ACC.
    That puts the responsibility back on the individual.”

    Hear! Hear!

    Christ, can’t wait for ACC’s ex post pronouncements about exactly what dangerous skiing is.

    Remember, this is an organisation that has no insurance policy, your compensation is in the hands of an assessor’s determination of your needs. It is free to fuck you over. And with that freedom and under pressure to cut its completely out of control spending, ACC pulls this kind of shit.

    Dangerous skiing will be ultimately determined to be any activity involving gravity and snow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    Meh. List all the causes of death in NZ, order by frequency. Start at the most common before you go worrying about this.

    It is a little known fact that wearing of helmets in cars is proven to reduce the death toll. As it turns out, too many voters drive cars, so never acted upon. Also, you know how you’re supposed to put your kids in the back seat of the car because it’s safer. Well, it’s safer to put your wife in the back seat too. What’s that, you don’t love your wife as much as you love your kids? Or was that you can tell your kids what to do, but bugger all show of telling your wife to sit in the back?

    I’ll be interested to see what offsetting behaviour has to say. Let me guess: 1. counting the benefits without counting the costs, 2. people wearing helmets probably take more risks than those who aren’t.

    While I respect the rights of those who are “calling” for helmets to be compulsory to do so, I also respect the rights of the rest of us to ridicule them for being morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “it doesn’t say who is doing the calling,”

    It doesn’t have to. We know who is doing the calling-

    1) Government bureaucrats whose jobs depend upon dreaming up and enforcing an unending stream of regulation and enforcement,

    2) the snivelling opportunists and government cronyists who sell/ manufacture/import safety helmets,

    3) cowardly politicians too frightened to oppose the above self interested parasites,

    4) media people in league with all of the above and anxious to delay the collapse of their crumbling, corrupt and derelict edifice by pushing contentious issues in their miserable little propaganda sheets/ broadcast outlets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. gazzaj (106 comments) says:

    Compulsory tequila shots and bungy jumps for the killjoys who come up with this crap :-) And for everyone else too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nick R (443 comments) says:

    @Ben 12:39pm – The problem is that the choice whether or not to wear a helmet can have implications for other people – because the cost of providing health care to skiers (and motorists etc etc etc) has been socialised via ACC. This creates the incentive for the nanny-state reaction. Constraining the cost of ACC is a public good, and that can be achieved by reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or reducing risky behaviour which leads to claims. All of these are politically risky, but arguably the latter has the least risk because it doesn’t involve increasing tax or cuttng services. All you get is lectures on the nanny state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Oh, and I forgot, dumbfucks like Bevan who just want to lie down and let the ruling socialist elite walk all over them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    If skifields had to source private insurance rather than have ACC foisted upon them would we see them require compulsory helmets? Is it ACC’s “no blame” basis that is distorting what might be a natural drive for ski fields to require head protection?

    Additionally everyone here is talking about death and completely ignoring permanent head injuries which generally cost more than someone dying.

    My personal opinion is if you’re a snowboarder and not wearing a helmet you’re a fool, if you’re a skier and go fast or ride freestyle then you should have one too. Kids should always wear a helmet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Oh, and I forgot, dumbfuck’s like Bevan who just want to lie down and let the ruling socialist elite walk all over them.

    Dance you gullible fool! Dance! Your masters at the Herald command you.

    This has nothing to do with your ‘socialist elite’ fantasy. It has everything to do with the Herald’s power to create news instead of reporting it, and useful idiots like yourself are just showing how gullible and easily lead you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    Sorry Murray, I skimmed a bit and missed them.

    I’m not totally against helmets, I have seen close up how they can help. On the open road a cyclist suddenly turned across in front of me, I slammed on the anchors but still hit him at speed, watched him come over the bonnet, smash the windscreen and bend the roof substantially with his helmet. I was a bit worried approaching him sprawled on the side of the road, but he came round after the ambulance arrived and was discharged from hospital the same day.

    If he hadn’t been wearing a helmet it would have been a lot worse for him, and for me and my daughters in the back seat it would have been messier and distressier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Nick R – yes of course you are right. And the correct response is to desocialise medicine. It is not to swallow this sort of nonsense, because its end point is to outlaw any behaviour or consumption that doesn’t minimise government exposure to health costs. Which is, basically, everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. redeye (626 comments) says:

    This country is already over-regulated to hell. I hate the fact that I have to take half a day out of my busy schedule to take my 4 year old trailer into town so some mechanic can check the tyres and lights. I’m quite capable of doing that myself and I’d accept the penalty if I was caught towing it without sufficient tread/lights.

    Another personal example: I’m required to have a vitamin B12 shot every three months (doctor ordered). It is impossible to overdoes on B12, you can’t get addicted to it, and it’s hardly a mind altering substance targeting teenagers. For the past ten years in Aussie I purchased it straight over the counter from the local chemist.

    Not in NZ. I’m forced to pay for a doctors consultation so I can get a prescription, a further fee for a nurse to jab me, and the Chemists refuse to supply me with more than one unit at a time, so I’m required to do this every 90 days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “useful idiots like yourself are just showing how gullible and easily lead you are.”

    Meanwhile, low IQ easily manipulated morons like you demonstrate why the socialists have found it so easy to reduce NZ to a corrupt and cronyist little commie hole. The Cuba of the South Pacific. Well done knuckle dragger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    Breaking news – Car crashes into house after fatal heart attack

    Calls are increasing for houses to be banned from the sides of streets and roads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “If he hadn’t been wearing a helmet it would have been a lot worse for him, and for me and my daughters in the back seat it would have been messier and distressier.”

    If your speed had been restricted to 5 kph, there would have been nobody hurt at all. Something sound not quite right there PG. Can you guess what it is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Pete, you’re right helmets can be a help. But so can cabbage for dinner every night. I imagine there’s some solid research that indicates eating cabbage every dinner can increase live expectancy by x years. But not even hardcore socialists think regulating food consumption this way would be useful, because quality of life matters. And since everyone has a different view of what quality means, it makes zero sense to regulate it one way or the other. Enjoyment, though not life span, is maximised by letting people choose.

    No to regulated cabbage == no to regulated helmets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    I like the idea that no helmet = no ACC. Real simple. Same with bicycle helmets.

    Anyone who claims they can afford to ski but can’t afford a helmet can’t actually afford to ski at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “This country is already over-regulated to hell.”

    Dead right. So who are you voting for next election?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    No to regulated cabbage == no to regulated helmets.

    No to cauliflower ears, they look terrible. Soft helmets for locks should be compulsory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. redeye (626 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: I voted National at the last. Undecided in the next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Pete, I would laugh, except I think you are probably being serious. you seem to think regulation actually works. Ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I like the idea that no helmet = no ACC.”

    How about allowing people to opt out of ACC altogether then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    Ben – nice to see a programmer in action. When I was learning C after Pascal, I had numerous errors from = v’s ==

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Undecided in the next.”

    Join me.

    Boycott National until they begin to stand for what they claim to stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, low IQ easily manipulated morons like you demonstrate why the socialists have found it so easy to reduce NZ to a corrupt and cronyist little commie hole. The Cuba of the South Pacific. Well done knuckle dragger.

    Thats funny. I’m not the one openeing wide for the Herald. Your like a dancing monkey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    Ben, when you brought up cabbages was the association with them and head injuries deliberate?

    What National Stands For

    · A globally competitive economy
    · Regular tax reductions
    · Higher standards in education
    · Tough on crime
    · Effective healthcare, sooner
    · Valuing families
    · Building opportunity for all
    · Encouraging ambition

    The National Party was founded on principles of individual responsibility, private enterprise, and reward for individual effort. These principles are the only sure path to a society of personal freedom and rising standards of living for all.

    We value honesty and fairness, hard work, respect for achievement, and integrity. These virtues underpin successful societies by reconciling the dynamism of free enterprise and the freedom of expression we value in a modern society, with the need for compassion, a sense of fair play, and our need to ensure safe communities for our children to grow up in.

    We need to reinvigorate our society if we are to create the sort of country that will be attractive to our children and grandchildren, a society that will allow them to meet their aspirations here in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Join me.

    Boycott National until they begin to stand for what they claim to stand for.

    Yeah everybody! Join the socialist tool Redbaiter and help Labour win office again!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Thats funny. I’m not the one openeing wide for the Herald.”

    No, you’re just a loser who through ignorance apathy and political incoherence has done nothing but whine piteously while NZ incrementally collapses into the chasm of socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Dance monkey dance!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Join the socialist tool Redbaiter and help Labour win office again!”

    Yep, I’d rather Labour any day than a cluster of cowardly ideological traitors who think being one hundredth of a degree less bad than Labour is the way to win my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Well at least the truth is finally out – your nothing but a Labour party tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Yawn. Go away Bevan. Low IQ time waster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Redbaiter

    How about allowing people to opt out of ACC altogether then?

    Absolutely, one size fits all. Even ski helmets are made in different sizes. If the socialists had their way there would be one size of helmet and it would cost billions but would be compulsory… just like ACC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    [Re bike helmets - almost everyone uses the roads, so an increased general climate of safety benefits almost everyone. If (god forbid) a cyclist ever goes over my bonnet, I would rather see his crash helmet than his skull touch down on my windscreen. I have to keep my car warrantable, it isn't a lot to expect cyclists to wear helmets. ]

    Bike helmets are rated for crashes only up to about 15mp (24kph). Probably good for speeds kids ride at but most adults on the open road are riding a lot faster than that and tend to get hit by cars and trucks going 100kph and get splattered, helmet or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Ben, when you brought up cabbages was the association with them and head injuries deliberate?

    Nope. Read carrots if you prefer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller

    So on my morning commute hitting 70kph while passing cars who are obeying the 50k speed limit my bike helmet is pretty lame…. but it stops me getting pulled up for not wearing one and it sets a good example for the kids watching me pass their cursing parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    burt – if you want to wear one great – I prefer not to. When I road in from the Hutt into Wellignton I used to stick to the cycle lane where I could so I could take it off. Had a cop try to tell me I had to wear one there as well but he was wrong – it is only on the road. In almost every jurisdiction that has introduced compulsory helmet laws the numbers of people cycling has declined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Honest John (204 comments) says:

    I – “So what was it that got you into blogging redbaiter?”

    R – Well, initially it was to battle the mighty global communist conspiricy, led by space lizards from planet Trotsky in the Gulag nebular, but then it turned into a way for me to take out my frustration at the world for not recognising that i’m a genius. Instead of running one of the largest corperations in the world like i should be, i’m a lowly loser siting behind a small desk in a windowless room, taking orders for some 27 year old bozo who thinks i should have employment rights and other evil comunist conventions, that are part of the larger global communist conspiricy. It makes me want to bleed my body white – i can’t stand that stinking communist blood….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Yawn. Go away Bevan. Low IQ time waster.

    Classic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Michael (880 comments) says:

    Life must end at thirty unless reborn in the fiery ritual of Carousel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “So what was it that got you into blogging redbaiter?”

    Wow, a big government leftist totalitarian writing off topic attempts at ridicule. Attempts that include cowardly false allegations, lies and feeble and witless attempts at humour. Who ever would have thought it possible?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. cha (3,529 comments) says:

    Yawn….. so 1950s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Brian Smaller

    Motorcycle helmets were pretty unpopular when they were introduced as well. If the requirement to wear a helmet puts you off riding a bike then you must have had weak resolve to ride in the first place. Besides, my bike helmet keeps my iPod earphones in place and hey I don’t need to hear the cars because I’m wearing a helmet ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. gravedodger (1,426 comments) says:

    Whats the money that this came from the sales desk of a helmet distributor or someone about to set up same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (759 comments) says:

    Come in Jerry…….”The stupidest thing is a helmet law, the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly it’s not even trying to prevent the cracking of the skull it’s in”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Honest John (204 comments) says:

    Wow, a guy who seems to think that he’s trapped in a parallel universe, inhabiting senator McCarthy’s body, has a formulaic and almost perfunctory whinge about being called out on his stupidity. Who would have thought?

    Ever feel like it’s groundhog day redbaiter? Every day you trot out the same old tired, angry and paranoid lines. Sucks to be you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    It sure is ground hog day when all leftists ever have in response to their agenda of big government, less liberty, high taxes and suffocating regulation laid bare is the same old same old argument-free ridicule they’ve been using for the last fifty years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Rex Widerstrom (5,124 comments) says:

    Bevan:

    Yeah everybody! Join the socialist tool Redbaiter and help Labour win office again!

    Clearly you’d care if this happened, but I wonder how many other people would. They’d be a bit irritated and disappointed, but (especially with Clark now gone) the two are so indistinguishable that if most people were drugged for the duration of the election campaign and woke up after a change of government, it’d take them months to notice that the dullard mouthing monotonous platitudes while doing nothing of consequence was a different dullard to the one before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    burt – I now live 210km from where I work. I am not riding to work, even if it is only one trip down and up each week :)

    I used to ride in a lot – summer and winter. It is just that I hate wearing cycle helmets. I have noticed that in Wanganui where I now live, almost every other cyclist I see seems to ride around without a helmet.

    As to your iPod – it will probably protect you far more than your helmet when a car slams you at 100kph on the open road. You wont hear it coming and be more relaxed at the moment of impact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    How about just signing a waver if you go skiing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    How about sticking to the trails and ensuring that operators only mark out ski areas that don’t have 200′ drops in them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Banana: a waiver? You mean a waiver that exempts you from the benefits you’ve been paying far to much for at, ultimately, the point of a gun all these years? Uh no thanks.

    Or do you mean a waiver that exempts you from both benefits and the obligation to pay the state to pretend it is running insurance? Sure sign me up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    “do you mean a waiver that exempts you from both benefits and the obligation to pay the state to pretend it is running insurance? Sure sign me up!”

    Well i am hoping thats the destination one would arrive at if given the choice, who bloody knows though maybe you would be called a rich prick for being able to afford to ski.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    An irony is that regulation could well work to Mt Hutt’s advantage in all this (no wonder it supports regulation). Club fields don’t make a lot of money at the best of times, but they are a significant source of competition for the bigger commercial fields. So: stifling regulation that adds a fixed overhead per field plus an obligation on everyone to wear helmets probably will disproportionately hit the Craigieburns and Mt Cheesemans of this world, and limit future entry. Bootleggers and baptists. Again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. boredboy (246 comments) says:

    Reminds me of a Seinfeld stand-up bit:

    “There are many things we can point to as proof that the human being is not smart.

    The helmet is my personal favorite.

    The fact that we had to invent the helmet…

    Why did we invent the helmet?

    Well, because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads.

    We looked at the situation…

    We chose not to avoid these activities

    but to just make little plastic hats

    so that we can continue our head cracking lifestyles.

    The only thing dumber than the helmet, is the helmet law,

    the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly

    it’s not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it’s in.

    At least the helmet is functional clothing.

    I appreciate that.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    ^^^ A manifesto for staying at home where it’s nice and safe. Awesomeness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Flashman (184 comments) says:

    This is bureaucratic nanny state stupidity is just getting rolling in NZ. I put some measure of blame on the hordes of useless adnoidal salt-dicked pommy jobsworths flooding into this country’s government departments, schools, quangos and city councils.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    Skiing helmets aren’t so bad. They could lower alcohol limits so people won’t want to drive themselves when they go out, but then they could force taxis to install cameras so it’s too expensive to use them.

    Maybe you’re right RRM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    How about banning the use of cellphones while driving?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Pete George (21,798 comments) says:

    I forgot that mikey, but cellphone regulations should make it cheaper to call a more expensive taxi because you’ve drunk a glass too many to risk driving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    I prefer to take acid and drive, no need for taxis or cellphones and its far more challenging

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Rex Widerstrom (5,124 comments) says:

    mikeysmokes: But how can you be sure you are driving? :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    Thats easy Rex. If I wake up on my neighbours lawn it means I was driving

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. V (660 comments) says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but in at least one of these cases the skier was skiing out of bounds?
    If they are prepared to break that rule, chances are they won’t obey a rule to wear a helmet.

    Skiing in NZ is relatively safer than o’seas because of the lack of tree runs, which may compel some to wear helmets.
    Ultimately why can’t it be up to the individual to decide?

    It should also be stated in these types of stories who is doing the ‘calling’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ManukauMum (134 comments) says:

    Having once got hit in the back of the head by a chairlift when someone else knocked me over and been wiped out by a snowboarder on more than one occassion, I choose to ski in a helmet. I choose not to cycle because 3 members of my immediate family have been injured while cycling in suburbia. One ended up with a dented helmet as a result. They have all given up street cycling. I too have been injured a couple of times while cycling, but that was before helmets were in use. What can I say, we’re an active family, but we take sensible precautions. I wouldn’t get in a car and not use a seatbelt. I see helmets as no inconvenience at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    Seatbelts are bollocks. If your gonna have a good crash your dead. The best precaution is to drive like a champion and look out for the maniacs.
    Be vigilant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. willtruth (245 comments) says:

    I ski, and skiing can be bloody dangerous, no matter how good you are. If (and only if) the evidence is that they substantially reduce injury and death then I’m in favour of requiring them. Why not? Presumably all those who are against it on personal liberty grounds are also calling for the repeal of the seat belt legislation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. nearlyblonde (9 comments) says:

    i dont think you can compare helmets with safety belts …. that is just putting up a straw man. it would be better to compare it to push bike helmets. yes the issue of personal liberty is a hot topic …. and the argument for the ‘greater good’ which if you want a village example of this watch Hot Fuzz! A great movie !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.