Originally Posted by
wphamilton
No, that doesn't follow, neither of the bolded fragments.
First, the people putting on helmets did not experience higher risk. They did not ride slower. They did not "perceive" any difference in risk levels. The study acknowledged this explicitly.
Second, the people who "routinely wore helmets" also did not experience higher risk when wearing a helmet. They "perceived" a higher risk when taking it off, which does not mean that there was an actual higher risk experienced. Just a feeling. They did pedal down the 1/4 mile hill more slowly, immediately after taking the helmet off. If anything, it confirms that "feeling" of higher risk but nothing more could be concluded. It does not follow that they would ride faster when they put the helmet back on, other than on the immediate 1/4 mile hill.
First, I did not fail to notice the issue pointed out by the bareheaders who donned helmets for the experiment. In that sense, it did nothing to prove risk compensation.
But second, the language of the study indicated that the helmeteers ride safer/less riskier/slower when riding with no helmet. No getting around it -- they ride riskier/less safe/faster while wearing a helmet than without. The subtext is that those who routinely ride with a helmet also routinely ride risker/less safe/faster than they would otherwise, confirming risk compensation is in effect for those wearing helmets.
I agree with you on the first point, but not the second. And if anything, I believe the whole study points out how weak the risk compensation issue is regarding this Great Helmet Debate -- so weak that it should not even be considered when discussing bicycle helmets.
However, the original contention was that there were no risk compensation studies, and... there are...