Originally Posted by
wphamilton
I don't see where there is riskier behavior (as opposed to "perceived risk"), unless it was the helmet wearers cycling slower when they didn't wear one.
I've noticed it personally, that when I'm accustomed to wearing a helmet and ride without one, it feels riskier for at least a few minutes, so I don't doubt their results.
But no one is interested in an effect that lasts "a few minutes".
I suspect they would have ridden more slowly if they were required to ride naked.
"
The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster."
That's not the only "notion" that the findings could be consistent with. It's possible that they'd start riding faster over time even without a helmet.
They probably see riding faster as a "percieved
increased risk" inherently and compensate by wearing helmets (that is, the choose to ride faster and helmets are available).
For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet.
These riders ride slow and still ride slow with a helmet.
One reason the Dutch injury rate is low is because they mostly ride at around walking speed. The anti-helmeteers want just want people to ride slow!