Originally Posted by
grolby
Oh, please. Explain exactly how it is "dangerous" to have an accurate understanding of the real-world benefits of knowing how to fall. Be specific - no more of this hand-waving.
Next point - seems like you're itching for a fight. Why else would you raise the question? You know how this goes around here. The answer to your question also has some nuance, and the BF record on nuance is poor.
Anyway, there's evidence to suggest people may adjust their behavior to be less careful when they feel more protected, and vice versa. This theory is called risk compensation. It's definitely plausible that wearing a helmet makes riders more willing to engage in risky behavior. Plus, we've all seen how many people really do overestimate the benefits of wearing a helmet. Just look at all the posts all over the internet who cracked a helmet in a fall and claim it definitely saved their lives. The general population is totally misinformed about how much helmets help, and avid cyclists if anything seem to be more misinformed, thanks possibly to all those cracked helmet anecdotes.
That said, helmets do help at least a little bit. The data suggests helmets may not reduce the rate of head injuries, but they do reduce the severity of head injuries and improve recovery. So of course I think it's a good idea for cyclists to wear helmets, at least if they have a lot of exposure and especially if they ride fast and/or in groups.
It's not a bad analogy for my feelings about the "learning to fall" stuff. By all means, do it! It could help. Just be aware that, realistically, a bicycle crash is a physics problem and when the contest is physics v. human body, physics has the advantage. Like a helmet, you can't rely on it to protect you. I await your explanation of how understanding risk is dangerous.
Interestingly, "seems like you're itching for a fight" is exactly what I though upon your first response to me. While I don't really feel like making this a war of words, I do realise that intention is often hard to convey in written communication.
Back to the point at hand. Your statements, as written, beg to be interpreted as "Since crashing is a crapshoot, learning technique is next to worthless and you might as well just go into it passively and what ever happens happen." While you have now made it abundantly clear that's not what you really think, this was not the meaning your original words clearly conveyed. For someone untrained, they could serve to confirm that all crashes happen way too fast for any meaningful reaction to occur, even though that's patently false for anyone with some experience and training.
It is quite similar to how "Don't let go of the handlebar" doesn't have to mean anything bad once it's expanded upon, but by itself is incomplete and has some bad implications. Nuance, as you say.
Let's try to put it a different way. People here are saying things that amount to "I've been in a fight once, and I was flat on my back before I knew what hit me. It all happened so fast that I doubt knowing martial arts would have been of any help." You then come in and say "There's a lot of chatter about martial arts being useful in a fight. Fights are wild, unpredictable things. Professional fighters are highly trained in martial arts, yet they also get beaten or knocked out in seconds despite that. Once a fight has started, many of you wish to believe that much or most of what's going to happen next is still under your control. You're wrong, but I suppose it's harmless enough to believe it. But it's still a delusion." While what you might have wanted to say was "Fights are dangerous no matter how good you are", do you see how easily it can be interpreted as "Martial arts are useless in a fight", especially under confirmation bias?