It's a fairly recent trend. I've been riding bikes for 40 years, and no random stranger has ever yelled at me to wear a helmet until recently. It's happened to me three times over the past couple years. My ride the other day, however, was one for the record books, with three different strangers yelling/lecturing me that I should wear a helmet. It really ruined what was an otherwise great ride. Thus my rant.

Yeah, I've noticed that you're obsessed with minutiae. Good for you. You're the guy who approvingly cited a study with claims that bicycle helmets decrease head injuries by 85%.

However I agree with you. A marshmallow on your head might, in some very specific limited circumstances, prevent TBI. "That 10 Joules between life and death!!!". I know a guy who was wearing a marshmallow and was hit by a big-rig. He survived. The doctor told him that he would have been dead except for the marshmallow. Because he knows. Please don't argue with me, it's disrespectful. Thank you. Ride safe y'all.

Probably because American football players often lead with thier head on tackles. I don't think bicyclist ever plan on using thier heads as a stopping device, but it happens.

rx rider

Are you suggesting that cyclist that dont wear helmets should ride at really slow speeds like a little old grandma on her old trike. Maybe not any faster than 7 or 8 mph???

...because rugby/football has so much to do with cycling, how...?

To be fair, it's an Internet discussion forum, man. While there's a lot of good info in there, it's kinda taken as a given you have to wade through all the other stuff. It's more like a conversation than a catalog of official debates. Also, unfortunately, people get tired of posting the same facts over and over again. Too bad there isn't a tool that can catalog all links posted in a thread... that might at least narrow it down.

You say that like you're not...

FWIW, I've heard this as well.

And boxing is more deadly with gloves. Not entirely sure of the relevance, however, since contact isn't the aim of the game.

What about with helmets, as at the Olympics? More relevant I'd say.

You haven't had to wade through the whole risk compensation tangent yet, have you?

Elvik, whose study was posted on a notorious helmet-skeptic site, said in a very well documented study that the whole helmet risk compensation thing can't be measured and is a very minor, if anything, point in the whole helmet debate.

Seriously, the bare-head brigade needs to lay the risk compensation thing to rest. It's not a measurable factor. Elvik says so, specifically in reference to the whole bike helmet debate. Give it a rest...

It depends what aspect of it you're talking about. What my point has always been in regards to risk compensation isn't that under normal use with normal expectations it will have much of a negative effect, but that when people overestimate what the helmet can do, which most folks seem to agree is pretty common, it can lead to some dangerous decisions. I don't think, in that context, what I'm saying is all that controversial. If a person is aware of what limitations and abilities a helmet has, I don't think risk compensation is going to be much of a factor... the problem is it seems there are relatively few people that do.

We all engage in risk compensation behavior, every day.

Sure. But as it applies to bicycle helmets, the effects are so minimal as to be inconsequential. So says Elvik; so say I. If y'all want to keep harping about it, know that a leading helmet researcher who's study was posted on a notorious helmet-skeptic site agrees with me and others regarding the minimal relevance of risk compensation where bicycle helmet use is concerned. Elvik doesn't qualify his statement to this effect, statements otherwise need to be supported with relevant cites as they pertain specifically to the bike helmet debate.

Seriously, stop bringing it up in this thread as it is not relevant, not supported by research, debunked and dismissed by someone who knows more than you regarding helmet research.

You missed my point entirely if you think Elvik is somehow countering what I'm saying.

You are an absurd individual. Nothing else need be said to you.

I've read through the *latest* risk compensation tangent, which I assume isn't the *whole* of it :p

Football pads and boxing gloves cause more injuries because they allow harder hits. Unless I decide that wearing a helmet means I should start taking out car mirrors with my head, I'm unable to draw any link between pads and gloves and bike helmets.

Put up or shut up: cite studies regarding risk compensation as it applies specifically to bike helmets...

I've posted the Elvik cite twice and would be curious as to what either of you has to say regarding his findings where risk compensation is concerned compared to where y'all are at regarding risk compensation as it applis to bicycle helmet use. Instead of doing so, you seem to be happy to make generalized statements about me missing the point or being absurd, without any argument to back that up. No one really seemed interested in commenting on the Elvik statement when I posted it the other times, so I actually am curious how that plays with your views on bike helmets, specifically where risk compensation is concerned.

I'm obviously not seeing it your way; convince me otherwise. Apologies if you've already expounded on such -- let me know and I'll do some digging to find our where in this thread you commented on the Elvik's findings regarding risk compensation.

I hadn't read anything on the football pads and whatnot. There was a study cited earlier, but it had more to do with how other people react around a helmeted cyclist.

Basically, my understanding of it and how it applies to cycling in the general sense is simply that if people perceive a safety device as more capable of protecting themselves than it really is, it can lead to skewed, poor decisions. I've used the example of a fencing mask before. Say both fencers were wearing masks that only protected against glancing blows, and would not protect from a strong direct hits (like some of the first masks used). Obviously, if they know the mask can only protect against incidental touches, they're likely to fence with that in mind, avoiding the face. If, however, they both mistakenly believe these masks will protect against strong direct hits to the mask, they aren't going to concern themselves with it, and this can result in injury. Even in foil, where the mask is not valid target and they may not try to hit the mask, this would still be concerning.

We all make risk/reward checks every day, even when we don't realize it. If perception is skewed, the decision will be too.

mconlonx, this is where you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that a person who knows the abilities and limitations of a helmet will engage in measurably riskier behavior resulting in more injury, which is more what Elvik is addressing, I think... I'm simply arguing that while accurate estimations may not result in measurably higher danger, overestimations of safety equipment effectiveness skew the risk/reward analysis and probably do produce a measurable effect. This really shouldn't be all that controversial. If people thought cars were made of nerf, they wouldn't be so concerned about crashing either. Lots of examples you can use. In other words, the people trying to get people to wear helmets by fear-mongering tales of death and brain damage are probably doing more harm than good.

Except in the fencing analogy, the purpose of fencing is to hit your opponent, and the mask allows greater freedom to hit your opponent; similarly, in football and boxing the padding allows you to hit your opponent harder. While all analogies must remain imprecise, I don't think the reasoning can be said to carry over here, either. If someone was already OK with hitting me on my bike, and felt that me having a helmet on made them feel more OK with the idea of hitting me, I'd grant your point, but that's not the situation (I hope). For the driver, the hitting itself is the thing to be avoided: I'm not going to buzz you because I think you'll be just dandy after, or avoid doing so because you may be more under the weather.

Also, the hypothesis is more or less untestable and (correct me if I'm wrong) not backed up by data.

I agree. As I said in the thread on earbud-wearing, what decisions you chose to make WRT what risks you're willing to run is your business. Trying to convince yourself or others that there is no difference in risk is another matter entirely.

I don't think the Elvik study made any kind of differentiation between people who know what a helmet does and what they might assume it does. In that case -- without qualification -- I'm led to assume that his reference is in general, which includes both those who take actual protective qualities of helmets into account with those who attribute more protective capability to helmets than for which they are designed and tested. I have no reason to think otherwise based on the statement regarding risk compensation in the Elvik study, since the rest of the study is operating under the same assumptions: that there is a minority riding who actually know the protective capability of a helmet, while the majority ascribe safety attributes to helmets outside their actual design and tested parameters.

Where you get from risk compensation in a study posted on a helmet-skeptic site to fear mongering of death and brain-injury is a mystery, since it has nothing to do with the actual context.

Your understanding of how risk compensation applies to cycling where helmets are concerned is overwrought, overstated, and denounced as a non-issue by an expert who knows more than you do about the subject.

Again, if you want to address the issue of risk compensation as a non-issue based on what Elvik found, please do so.

I'd love for someone to debunk Elvik's finding regarding risk compensation as inconsequential and not easily measurable where bike helmets are concerned, but so far, no one has. Yet people keep bringing it up as somehow relevant to the discussion.

I can imagine people taking greater risks if they were encased in head-to-toe body armour. But with just a helmet, no. I feel like I'm pretty conscious of the vulnerability of various other parts of my body, especially around the least protected vital organ area of the abdomen.

On numerous occasions I have seen posters on this website write things to the effect of "...and when I realized I'd forgotten my helmet I very carefully rode home to get it". You and Elvis may not believe in risk compensation, but I have no doubt of it.

If the power steering on my car failed, I might be able to drive very carefully to the garage to get it fixed, but you wouldn't argue that driving with power steering causes inherently riskier behavior. Or maybe you would, I wouldn't take that for granted in this thread.