You drive with 6" spikes? Really?

???

People here frequently suggest that helmets "may" cause more harm than not having them. You aren't paying enough attention.

Years ago, one person suggested that helmets would cause him to misjudge "judo" rolls! Others have suggest that one's unhelmeted head "may" absorb impacts with less injury. Other people (meanwhile and closetbiker like this one!) have suggested that helmets "may" cause neck injuries (offsetting any other benefit they have).

These are not the same thing.

I do wish people would stop lumping in MHL's in with stuff.

No one here really support MHL's. I have no idea if anybody here is for promoting them.

Which was especially true for the foam only helmets (the ones that did not have the plastic skid surface on them of todays design). When a rider went done, the high friction of the foam caught the road, holding the helmet/head in place while the body kept moving. That caused some rather severe neck injuries.

The helmet manufacturers realized the significant increase in neck injuries and started putting the skid plastic over the foam. Then to get rid of the evidence against them, they offered free helmet exchanges for any helmet that had been in an collision.

Although the skid plastic significantly reduces that risk of neck injury over the old helmets, it does not eliminate it.

Citation needed.

Don't ignore this either.

People here are talking about hypothetical injuries. And it's hard to say whether properties of no-longer available devices is even relevant.

And even if there were such issues in the past, it's unknown whether they made helmets worse overall. And it's silly to fault anybody for improving something.

Nice conspiracy angle there! Of course, you'd complain if they didn't offer exchanges!

You can't "eliminate" the risk of anything. The goal is to make sure that the benefits outweigh the risks. The fact that there is or might be some small risk doesn't really address whether that goal is achieved.

I meant "doesn't matter", because short of concrete, non-conflicting evidence (which seems impossible), no one here is likely to change their mind. The evidence has been posted before, I just don't care to devote time to go back, find it again, and repost it on the off-chance someone will suddenly convert, if you see what I mean. I didn't mean your numbers don't matter.

I've seen other sites with the similar stats posted here. Maybe cb has it favorited, I don't know. My point was simply that there are numbers in direct conflict with what you post here. FWIW, I think it's moot; cyclists are most likely to have a fatal crash at an intersection with a car, the time a helmet seems least likely to help (I don't think it does at all, barring a fluke, but I'm guessing this lesser statement you might come closer to agreeing to). Very few cyclists seem to die any other way, such as in solo falls. It's almost always vehicular impact. In these cases a) a helmet is not likely to help against those forces way over the limits at which they are tested and b) if the impact is that hard, it's likely to be fatal anyway from internal damage.

No, you are putting words in my mouth. Funny how that can lead to something completely different than what I said.

I said nobody says they offer no benefits. Nobody says that. Some people argue they may offer more harm than good, but that != no benefits. That = benefits along with harm. Two very different things that can drastically change a decision based on conditions.

You didn't read the thing you quoted. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just saying you are wrong.

If people say that they "may" cause more harm than then no helmets, they are saying that the helmets provide no benefit.

I understood what you said and it's wrong: some people here certainly do say that helmets have no benefit or even cause harm (meanwhile and closetbiker regularly do so). (Some of these people are coy and say they protect against "scrapes" but they are just BS-ing you.)

The basic failure of what you said is in using "nobody": one example suffices to disprove it.

The only issue is whether, overall, the benefits exceed the costs (including any risk of harm).

If the costs exceeds the benefits, then the helmet does not, in effect, offer any overall benefit.

Sorry. "I would be driving a lot more" etc.

Nope. Read back in this thread.

In other earlier versions of this thread, they where hypothetical. You'd have to point to the particular post that says otherwise (and indicates that it is more than a rare outcome).

That's perfectly logical, you know. Really is. :)

And so they do, so no BS'ing.

We've been over this a number of times. This norwegian with his meta-analysis has the information. I don't really want to waste energy on finding the paper again.

Ahh, you're a bad driver. It's a good thing they keep you off the road!

(I personally am interested in avoiding all accidents even the ones where airbags don't deploy.)

So, you wish to tell us that you've been participating in this debate, and yet you've forgotten all that's been written and referenced and linked to about risk compensation?

I think he may have read "The Armchair Economist".

The "risk compensation" is hypothetical with normal/typical riders.

And if you know you are subject to it and drive carelessly anyway, that means we are all better off with you not driving.

It'd work to your advantage if you could provide such a quote.

I'm not so sure you could find one because you may be relying on memory and impression which aren't so reliable.

I have repeatedly posted that helmets can provide protection up to it's designed and tested for specs. I've also posted that at an aggregate level, measured, verifiable reduction of injuries from helmet use has been difficult to find, something that doesn't seem to make sense if, in fact, helmets reduce injury.

There could could be a number of reasons for this, but it's all speculation as to why. One possibility could be that the type of injury a helmet prevents, most often are not the type of injury that is professionally treated (You know - "scrapes" No BS!).

Another possibility is that the injury a helmet prevents is off set by other injuries that otherwise would not occur because of the confidence provided by a protective helmet.

Now don't go saying I said it because I said it might be a reason. I didn't say it was a reason. As I have posted, it's all just speculation

You have no way of knowing that, and the bolding doesn't make it any more accurate. But regardless of the exact number of cyclists who do act that way, it's significant - as can be demonstrated by this thread. I have never been insulted for choosing to drive a car without some particular safety equipment, and when I have spent time in classic cars, the only comments I've had were positive - even when driving one not even equipped with seat belts, which is almost certainly more dangerous than the kind of bicycling I do.

But, but, the majority of non-helmet-wearing cyclists don't act that way either. :lol:

I don't think you understand the concept "risk compensation".

I've had people tell me they don't believe in risk compensation and in the same breath say they'd never ride a bike without a helmet...

Bingo.

Oh boy I haven't been here for a while, but I will dive back in.

What is inconsistent in that statement?

The risk compensation concept is to the effect: People who believe they have less chance of getting hurt, due to protective measures, will take greater risks, correct?

I can choose to wear a helmet without believing that risk mitigation has any meaningful impact on the behavior of myself or the general bicyling populace. I ride the way I ride whether I have a helmet on or not. I don't ride more carefully if I am not wearing my helmet (very rare but it has happened) or more agressively if I do wear a helmet..

Beyond that I think in many cases where risk is involved real behavior is not risk compensation but instead is risk mitigation or in other words the exact opposite of risk compensation. A couple of examples, my son when he used to ride skate parks (before he tore his ACL on a trampoline) put full protective gear on. He was planning on riding hard and put the gear on to minimize/prevent/mitigate injury He did not ride hard because he put gear on, he put gear on because he knew he was going to ride hard. I put heavy duty sunglasses on and lots of sun lotion when I go skiing. I don't ski a longer day becaused of this, but I prevent sun damage (the legs limit the skiing)

I wear a helmet biking and skiing, but that has not changed the risks I take or don't take in either.

over all the whole discussion of risk compensation as a reason not wear a helmet feels way overstated.