SlackerInc

Right. To flesh that out, someone might act extra careful for a short period of time if they normally ride with a helmet and suddenly find themselves without one. But if they routinely rode sans helmet, they'd quickly get tired of riding that way and go back to riding normally.

Six jours

False equivalence. Rhetorical posturing. Ad Hominem. And whatever the Latin word for "moronic" is.

Six jours

Pure unsubstantiated opinion. If you stick around for a while, you'll actually note numerous individuals who claim they wouldn't ride at all if not for helmets, which is kind of the ultimate expression of risk compensation.

Doubtless you folks will reply that people wouldn't fly at all if airplanes had never been invented, but whatever.

I-Like-To-Bike

If traffic conditions are considered by a cyclist as "too dangerous" to ride without a bicycle helmet, than given the minimal risk reduction capability of current bicycle helmet design, it should also be considered "too dangerous" to ride in traffic with a helmet.

closetbiker

Geez. I step out of the conversation for a couple of months and what do I see on the first page I gaze upon my return?

Not only have I posted this before, it's super easy to find. Just go to the wiki page on bicycle helmets, see that it has a section on risk compensation, and look at the 5 papers cited.

You may or may not agree with this, but the research is there and clear

telkanuru

Well you smell funny

Rx Rider

Doesn't this just say it all? obviously YOU can't contribute to the subject at hand without bringing in insult after insult after insult. so what if 25% of cyclists don't wear a helmet? how could you possibly care? what difference could it possibly make if you just kept your fool mouth shut? think you're helping? think again.

telkanuru

Rx Rider

we really should just let the 12 year old take control of this thread, see ya.

jim hughes

This is obviously, and I think unarguably, true. And it really cuts to the heart of the argument - that wearing a helmet to "feel" safe is really increaing your risk.

curbtender

Helmet or not, the idea is not to get hit, or do something stupid. Just go enjoy your ride and do what you need to be safe.

SlackerInc

The risk perception argument strikes me as one that can easily backfire on the anti-helmet crowd. If they are right, then (like many things in this world), it means that helmets are more likely to protect people than is otherwise apparent, if the conditions are equal. So for someone who wishes to be safe or promote safety, the takeaway is: (1) Wear your helmet and (2) Be careful and vigilant when riding. For me, as I said, it is a lot more difficult to ride carefully when I leave my helmet at home because then I no longer have a rearview mirror.

BTW, does the bareheaded crowd also wish cars did not have seatbelts and air bags? Are these causing people to drive around like maniacs?

surgeonstone

Pay attention, it has been said ad nauseum. Motorcycle helmets, seat belts and air bags have all been shown in whole population data to save lives and prevent head injuries, in effect clearly to achieve what they were designed to do. Bicycle helmets have not.

sudo bike

I edited after the fact to specify foil. While foil still has the point of hitting the other guy, the point isn't to hit the head.

But you can carry this analogy anywhere, really. Rock climbing and rope load has been used before. I would think it is, again, fairly uncontroversial to note that if a person overestimates what a piece of equipment can do, it may lead him to make a decision putting him at more risk than he otherwise might have been. That's really all that I'm saying, is just that misinformation can lead to poor decisions. I don't think risk compensation plays a measurable factor when people are well-informed about it... it's the skewing that comes from overestimation that I think compounds the issue to one that may be more worrisome.

I don't know about untestable, but I don't believe it has been tested and studied to any significant extent. As I said, there was one that mentioned something about drivers driving closer to helmeted cyclists, but that doesn't relate to my point, and I have no idea how good of a study it was. It's kind of an obscure area to get data for.

sudo bike

How do you get there from here?

If true, all it means is that when people overestimate the equipment, they may overestimate what it can do in practice. Meaning if people expect a helmet to save them from a car crash, they may take greater risks than if they only expect it to prevent minor injury. If cars were made of nerf, would people be as worried about crashing?

Again, if people know what helmets are capable of and likewise know their limitations, I don't see a problem.

Of course not... but I don't think there is any sort of widespread misconception about their abilities, either.

Also, nobody is arguing people will suddenly turn into maniacs, just that there will be a noticeable skewing. If you believe you had a magic medallion protecting you from harm, you aren't going to be as concerned about harm coming to you when weighing actions. Same is true in degree. This should be obvious. Simple stuff: If perceptions of risk/reward change (regardless of reality), the decision made by that analysis will change. When the perceptions match reality, this isn't a big deal... when they don't, it can be.

jim hughes

I can't give any sort of serious response to statements like those. I don't think one was expected, actually.

mconlonx

It's Elvik. And he's on your side of this debate...

PS: +1 with the anecdotal "proof" -- guess you're now on board with all those who claim, based on anecdotal evidence alone, that helmets "save lives!"?

mconlonx

Thanks for nothing -- direct citations, please? Some helmet skeptic researchers saying that risk compensation is relevant, others saying it's not -- who to believe...?

How do you reconcile the above studies you quote with Elvik's findings? And why on earth would you cite a study regarding motorist behavior where helmets are concerned in a debate specifically about cyclist risk compensation? Y'know, other than misdirection and blatant deception on your part? Not to mention that it is hardly the same caliber of study as Elvik's...

The research is far from clear if we have helmet skeptics arguing amongst themselves about the relevance of risk compensation, and people here only posting that which they think will support their own arguments regarding risk compensation while dismissing arguments against risk compensation among their own kind, helmet skeptics...

wphamilton

I have to admit that my helmet DID touch the ground on my latest fall, because there are a few light scratches on the back rear side. But no impact is evident (nor felt at the time). So it might possibly have saved me a minor scrape but more likely than that, made no difference.

Just thought I'd add to the anecdotal evidence here.

closetbiker

Geez Louise, you're not that dense are you? I don't think you are. I think you're just too lazy for words.

Referencing an easily attainable link that has supporting documentation, copying out the arguments with footnotes to studies that support the argument and you're asking for those studies and dismissing the arguments because of "helmet skeptic researchers"?

At what point does lazy = dumb?

mconlonx

I dunno, you tell me when lazy = dumb:

I've posted the link to the Elvik study twice with relevant quote, after a bare-head brigadier posted the study to begin with, and you didn't respond to that. Not that I blame you, just that it's out there if you care to look, which you apparently haven't. Otherwise, I'm sure you'd be debating semantics vs. rehashing older studies.

Now you decide to post regarding risk compensation, but without relevant cites.

You're posting older studies, superseded by Elvik's findings, including one study that has no relevance, and you claim that I am lazy and dumb...?



The research is far from clear, especially with findings from the Elvik study. BTW, that Elvik study is available on cyclehelmets.org website...

closetbiker

Let's see now. You post:

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

so I put up 5 and you're arguing about it.

Sheesh. No wonder I stopped wasting my time replying to your posts. It wastes time.

mconlonx

One of which has nothing to do with risk compensation regarding helmets; none of which had any relevant links; no commentary on how any of those relate to the Elvik study cited previously.

Again, thanks for nothing. Typical of the bare head brigade...

Six jours

Elvis, I sez.

And yes, you're right. That I have seen people post that they would not ride without helmets does actually mean that I agree with people who claim that helmets save lives. It's all so clear now.

SlackerInc

So the obvious question then is: shouldn't, IYO, bicycle riders wear motorcycle helmets if they want to be safer? I'm serious: if there is really a significant difference I would be willing to do this.

Why not? (Yes, one was expected.) As surgeonstone said, there is solid, unimpeachable evidence that seatbelts and airbags make people safer in crashes. This evidence is well known, down to which vehicles do better in crash tests. So why don't the drivers of the safest vehicles cut a few safety corners when they are late to work? Do car drivers have completely different psychology than bike riders?