Originally Posted by
sudo bike
We know the effect of risk compensation is real, we just don't know how much that applies to wearing a helmet. Also, I don't think anyone think(s) it "induces the rider to ride like a crazy person". I think the effects are supposed to be far more subtle; not something you'd really notice unless you went to the trouble of looking. That's usually the case with risk compensation.
I'm sorry but is this as lame an argument as it seems to be? If this is the best you can do then why not just pull the whole "risk compensation" theory out of the equation?