View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
#426
Senior Member
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.
#427
Senior Member
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...?
#428
Senior Member
So...
Is this a basic human failure, one that can be demonstrated again and again, even outside the bike industry? Do we think that helmet companies are unjustly capitalizing on this tendency? It's been claimed that they foster such, but even if they didn't, wouldn't they still sell helmets based on peoples' usual habits and assumptions?
Meaning: do helmet companies even need to foster the perception that helmets save lives, or will people naturally assume such and take the easy route out -- helmet/pill vs. safety course/lifestyle change?
Is this the helmet companies' fault? As a business, do they owe it to their shareholders to talk people out of buying their product?
Is this a basic human failure, one that can be demonstrated again and again, even outside the bike industry? Do we think that helmet companies are unjustly capitalizing on this tendency? It's been claimed that they foster such, but even if they didn't, wouldn't they still sell helmets based on peoples' usual habits and assumptions?
Meaning: do helmet companies even need to foster the perception that helmets save lives, or will people naturally assume such and take the easy route out -- helmet/pill vs. safety course/lifestyle change?
Is this the helmet companies' fault? As a business, do they owe it to their shareholders to talk people out of buying their product?
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
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-30-11 at 03:34 PM.
#429
Senior Member
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
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-30-11 at 03:11 PM.
#430
Senior Member
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 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
#431
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
However, I stand by the "double standard" thing.
#432
Senior Member
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.
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-31-11 at 04:39 PM.
#433
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by sudo bike; 10-31-11 at 12:28 AM.
#434
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Long Beach, Ca.
Posts: 591
Bikes: Raleigh Sojourn, '67 Raleigh Super Course, old Gary Fisher Mamba, and a generic Chinese folder
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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).
#435
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
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.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
#436
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#437
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southern Redneckistan
Posts: 46
Bikes: An inexpensive newer bike with stem shifters and stuff
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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... https://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.
Some things i'm seeing. There was the discussion that risk compensation doesn't exist for the helmeted to wit i offer... https://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.
#438
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#439
Senior Member
You'll never find a manufacturer make such a claim, maybe because so many "safety" advocacy groups do that work for them.
Typical is the retoric from "Safe Kids"
https://www.safekidscanada.ca/Profess...met/Index.aspx
Typical is the retoric from "Safe Kids"
https://www.safekidscanada.ca/Profess...met/Index.aspx
Yup. Manufacturers aren't going to say it. In fact, they place warning stickers on the things that tell consumers that the helmet cannot be relied upon to prevent any injury from happenning. They still do nothing to stop others from saying it and even sponsor helmet promotion groups who are attempting to pass MHLs.
https://www.helmetssavelives.org/
The single most effective safety device available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle crashes is a helmet.
Bike Helmet: Difference of Life or Death
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet.
https://www.helmetssavelives.org/
The single most effective safety device available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle crashes is a helmet.
Bike Helmet: Difference of Life or Death
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet.
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?
#440
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neglect_of_probability&oldid=422837827"
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neglect_of_probability&oldid=422837827"
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
#441
Senior Member
SafeKids routinely use the TRT study (85/88% reduction) that Bell indirectly funded.
#442
Senior Member
Has Bell ever invested in any, "how to ride safe" programs that didn't involve use of helmets?
I know there are plenty of such programs, but almost every one of them emphasizes the use of helmets. (programs in the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, that is; elsewhere, it's another story)
Has Bell sponsored any initiative to promote or teach responsible driving practices?
Just wondering if Bell is interested in promoting any form of safety for bicycling if it doesn't involve sales.
I know there are plenty of such programs, but almost every one of them emphasizes the use of helmets. (programs in the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, that is; elsewhere, it's another story)
Has Bell sponsored any initiative to promote or teach responsible driving practices?
Just wondering if Bell is interested in promoting any form of safety for bicycling if it doesn't involve sales.
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.
Last edited by mconlonx; 11-03-11 at 12:07 PM.
#443
Senior Member
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."?
#444
Senior Member
yes. Safety classes that includes helmets. I was asking if they support any safety initiatives that don't include helmets
#447
Senior Member
Can't speak for Bell, only personal experience dealing with Trek.
#450
Senior Member
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?