It makes sense to "grow" a market than force one.

An interesting example is on the west coast here. Portland, Org, which has has no helmet law, has larger use of helmets than Vancouver, BC, which does.

I wonder if there's some magic number of riders or percentage of ridership or even lack of growth where helmet companies have figured they'll have to start lobbying against helmet laws in order to grow...?

people want a simple, quick, and easy answer, even if there is no such thing.

All kinds of companies know this and use it to sell, just like they use other basic human traits (like fear) to sell.

In order to sell the product, helmet companies spread the perception that cycling is "dangerous" by placing it's risks out of context

all they have to do is strike a fear of riding into the hearts of people to grow their sales

If people didn't have a fear of head injury on a bike like they do off a bike, helmet sales wouldn't be any more than a tiny portion of what they are in the US, Canada, Aus, & NZ

If they have done so well with the fear thing, then political support of MHLs are actually counterproductive...

Heh, I am slowly learning that I must be very very carefull with the figures of speech I chose here. It was in absolutely no way meant as it was percieved by you. Sorry.

However, I stand by the "double standard" thing.

Politics are often driven by perception, hope, and fear, rather than reality.

Politicians require votes to work. If they think they can get them because the people want something, whether that thing is good or bad, support of that thing will sustain the politicians position, so they will support it.

MHL's are passed because people think riding a bike is dangerous and wearing helmets save lives. If people didn't think riding a bike is dangerous and wearing helmets save lives, MHLs wouldn't be passed.

Pish-tosh. Hyperbolic nonsense. I'm saying it is unrealistic to expect a company to do something that is not only not in it's best interest, but against it's best interest. As long as they aren't misrepresenting themselves in any way that has legal ramifications, I see nothing wrong with it. As far as supporting other groups who say it, like it or not, the de facto position is that helmets either save lives or prevent serious injury, and so it isn't really unduly "bad" to support those groups. Go after the groups that are saying it.

a

Exactly my point. Using the "I hit my head and I'm O.K." is the flimsiest of proof that helmets work (or don't work).

I am often tempted to post a "My ball cap saved my life thread" about the time I endoed head-first into the back of a motor home and walked away without a scratch. :lol:

I don't expect the helmet companies to do anything against their own interest. Neither implicitly nor explicitly. Just noting that they (apparently) pay others to lie favourably about their products. Hence my parallel about the hired killer. Which was just a parallel, meant to make the moral discrepancy stand out.

After catching back up (whew)
Some things i'm seeing. There was the discussion that risk compensation doesn't exist for the helmeted to wit i offer... http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-With-Cyclists
Then there is that helmet makers do/don't/indirectly lie, yeah well, welcome to the free market of ideas even some bad ones. Helmet makers, i would think, wouldn't subject themselves to anything that would result in a very expensive lawsuit. I once read something along the lines of true believers are the worst kind of tyrant because the only thing that holds them in check is their conscience. I'm sure you can look in any direction and see an example of "Faith" being a powerful force. So people who have faith in the Halo-met truly believe in it's power's of protection in a powerful crash and it's ability to predict what would have happened in a minor accident had it not been there.
Riding a bicycle is only as dangerous as you make it.
If you wear a helmet while riding a bike you are my brother.
If you do not wear a helmet (like me) you are also my brother.
If you have read any of this as Anti-helmet i must have not communicated properly i mean this to be read styroskeptic not foamophobic.

Were it so simple that they were hiring them to lie for them, I might agree.

So wait: which is it? Do helmet companies spread the fear using "safety groups" by proxy or not?

Closetbiker is saying pro-helmet groups "work for them" and "sponsor helmet promotion groups." Does this imply some payment to safety groups by helmet companies, even if a "donation" instead of technically hiring them?

"Neglect of Probability" accounts for some of the helmet arguments.

The neglect of probability bias, a type of cognitive bias, is the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty and is one simple way in which people regularly violate the normative rules for decision making.

There are many related ways in which people violate the normative rules of decision making with regard to probability including the hindsight bias, the neglect of prior base rates effect, and the gambler's fallacy. This bias, though, is notably different from the preceding biases because with this bias, the actor completely disregards probability when deciding, instead of incorrectly using probability, as the actor does in the above examples.

Baron, Granato, Spranca, and Teubal (1993) studied the bias. They did so by asking children the following question:

Susan and Jennifer are arguing about whether they should wear seat belts when they ride in a car. Susan says that you should. Jennifer says you shouldn't... Jennifer says that she heard of an accident where a car fell into a lake and a woman was kept from getting out in time because of wearing her seat belt, and another accident where a seat belt kept someone from getting out of the car in time when there was a fire. What do you think about this?

Jonathan Baron (2000) notes that subject X responded in the following manner:

A: Well, in that case I don't think you should wear a seat belt.
Q (interviewer): How do you know when that's gonna happen?
A: Like, just hope it doesn't!
Q: So, should you or shouldn't you wear seat belts?
A: Well, tell-you-the-truth we should wear seat belts.
Q: How come?
A: Just in case of an accident. You won't get hurt as much as you will if you didn't wear a seat belt.
Q: OK, well what about these kinds of things, when people get trapped?
A: I don't think you should, in that case.

It is clear that subject X completely disregards the probability of an accident happening versus the probability of getting hurt by the seat belt in making the decision. A normative model for this decision would advise the use of expected-utility theory to decide which option would likely maximize utility. This would involve weighing the changes in utility in each option by the probability that each option will occur, something that subject X ignores.

Another subject responded to the same question:

A: If you have a long trip, you wear seat belts half way.
Q: Which is more likely?
A: That you'll go flyin' through the windshield.
Q: Doesn't that mean you should wear them all the time?
A: No, it doesn't mean that.
Q: How do you know if you're gonna have one kind of accident or the other?
A: You don't know. You just hope and pray that you don't.

Here again, the subject disregards the probability in making the decision by treating each possible outcome as equal in his reasoning.

Baron (2000) suggests that adults may suffer from the bias as well, especially when it comes to difficult decisions like a medical decision under uncertainty. This bias could make actors drastically violate expected-utility theory in their decision making, especially when a decision must be made in which one possible outcome has a much lower or higher utility but a small probability of occurring (e.g. in medical or gambling situations). In this aspect, the neglect of probability bias is similar to the neglect of prior base rates effect.

In another example of near-total neglect of probability, Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) found that the typical subject was willing to pay $10 to avoid a 99% chance of a painful electric shock, and $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. (They suggest that probability is more likely to be neglected when the outcomes are emotion arousing.)
[edit] See also

* List of cognitive biases
* Decision analysis

[edit] References

* Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and Deciding (3d ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 260-261
* Rottenstreich, Y. & Hsee, C.K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12, 185-190.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neglect_of_probability&oldid=422837827"

Bell Sports have openly been a sponsor of SafeKids for years.

SafeKids routinely use the TRT study (85/88% reduction) that Bell indirectly funded.

No idea about Bell, but Trek is a "Champion" corporate sponsor of LAB through their Bikes Belong initiative. Trek sells helmets; LAB is a helmet supporter. So although Trek's contributions go as much to safety programs LAB teaches, it's still done under "helmets required" rules.

As much as they fund a pro-helmet organization which requires use of helmets for safety classes, Trek also funds safety classes by proxy as well.

Trek paid for me and hundreds of other dealers to attend the National Bike Summit in order to lobby Congresscritters. None of our lobbying had anything to do with helmets.

So according to your stance, sudo bike is off-base when he states: "Were it so simple that they were hiring them to lie for them, I might agree."?

yes. Safety classes that includes helmets. I was asking if they support any safety initiatives that don't include helmets

not at all. It's not Bells fault that there are whacko's out there.

... but you're saying said whacko's and their pro-helmet advocacy are supported by Bell?

Trek paid for dealers to attend the National Bike Summit to lobby their Congressional members. Part of the lobbying, like for TE funding within the Transportation Authorization bill, and Complete Streets amendment directly had to do with safety, and no mention of helmets. Trek also supports People for Bikes, which doesn't look like it has a helmet stance, either.

Can't speak for Bell, only personal experience dealing with Trek.

Not at all. Bell can't control the wackos's but that doesn't they don't benefit from them either.

Trek is a small player in the helmet market, no? Bell controls the vast majority of the helmet market.

Trek's policies would be driven by a different objective fueled by a different product line?

Doesn't sponsorship indicate support, usually financial...?

Just trying to figure out the nuance here between where you stand and sudo biker's stance on this particular issue. Appears to me that you stand apart, but your wording is confusing me -- are you in agreement with sudo bike on this and I'm just not getting it again?