fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Even in one area I suspect there are separate populations in this respect. If- it's rare these days- I'm out doing a leisure ride in the area around where I live a fair proportion of the cyclists I see are wearing helmets. If i'm riding around town- shopping or other local trip- then a smaller proportion are (and essentially zero helmet wearing if they are using the local bikeshare bikes- no-one carries around a helmet to use, the only people I've ever seen wearing one are local politicians in press photos)
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Would you say that you drive differently if your brakes were faulty or you perceived them to be faulty? Do you drive differently if it’s wet or icy? We compensate for the perceived risks all the time. The perceived risk of hurting your head is one such consideration. If you perceive that your helmet protects you, you are going to behave differently to if you considered your helmet is effective as a chocolate teapot.
classic33
Leg End Member
Would you ride your bike if the brakes were faulty, or you thought they were?
Most folk adapt their riding for colder conditions, especially if there's ice on the roads. With some even fitting special tyres. Both are vehicle related, not user related.
I've taken the same line, on the road, whilst wearing a helmet as when I haven't been wearing one. If I feel it's unsafe to have a vehicle behind me, or try passing me, I'll follow the same line regardless of what's on the head. The exception being Emergency Vehicles, I'll move over and let them past any time.
Risk Compensation is a newer argument against those who do wear a helmet. But seldom can the person using the term actually back the assertion up.
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
Have you actually looked into this? I mean, beyond thinking about when you think you are most careful? There is a ton of science backing up Risk Compensation - you are sounding rather foolish if you choose to deny it. Sorry 🤷♂️
classic33
Leg End Member
In relation to the thread title, and based on my previous post, explain how "risk compensation" alters how I ride a bike.
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
That's like denying gravity affects you, or hormones affect you, or nutrition affects you. As Greta might say:
Don't listen to me - listen to the scientists!
I'm not going to come out and watch you ride, measure every movement, give you personal coaching, when I could be reading other helmet nonsense on the internet!
classic33
Leg End Member
Never said you had to come out and watch, just base your answer on the rest of the post you quoted.
Risk compensation theory is just that, a theory. Just as helmets are one means of making cycling seem more dangerous to a non/new cyclist than to someone who's been cycling for a while. Separate, segregated cycle lanes being another more visible one. If we as cyclist insist that the roads are that unsafe that we require separate facilities, on road, in order to be able to cycle on the roads.
Helmet wearers are a much easier target, just as those who wear Hi-Vis are.
Risk compensation theory should be subject to systematic reviews of the scientific evidence | Injury Prevention (bmj.com)
Actually, I am not sure that there is. The difficulty with Risk Compensation theory is that it is very difficult to prove. For example, mandatory seatbelt legislation would suggest that driving became worse once seatbelts were mandatory - but deaths and severe injuries reduced significantly. There are many studies by doctors which demonstrate a clear benefit to wearing a helmet in terms of head injury outcomes (I have cited these elsewhere). It is difficult to prove that there are more injuries due to wearing helmets but that they are or are not more severe as a result. The only consistent finding is that legislation to wear helmets does not reduce accidents. However due to the number of factors involved it is difficult to discover *why* that is the case.
There was a study which determined how risky subjects' actions were when wearing two different types of headwear; a baseball cap and a cycling helmet.
Subjects were told the hat was to mount a camera to track their eye movements and the group was split into two.
Those wearing cycle helmets engaged were significantly more likely (statistically) to engage in more dangerous activities when wearing the cycle helmet as compared to those wearing a baseball cap.
And the activity ?
Computer gaming.
Subjects were told the hat was to mount a camera to track their eye movements and the group was split into two.
Those wearing cycle helmets engaged were significantly more likely (statistically) to engage in more dangerous activities when wearing the cycle helmet as compared to those wearing a baseball cap.
And the activity ?
Computer gaming.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
You'd have to at the number of accidents and of what type. Ignore outcomes as you are looking at the increased risk taking not the outcomes of those risks.
If I remember correctly, while deaths and injuries to drivers and front seat passengers went down with the introduction of mandatory seatbelts, deaths and injuries to pedestrians went up, which would suggest an element of risk compensation among drivers.
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
... is that explaining complex situations can be difficult.
There is no problem showing that Risk Compensation exists. You no doubt know this.
/wack-a-mole
Yes. The problem is in demonstrating that it is a significant factor as pertains to cycling helmets vs the safety factor of wearing the aforementioned.
Whereas there does seem to be significant data to suggest that your head does better when padded if you are in an accident.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Cool to see this agreement with the thread question.
Except we don't, do we? We say we want (not require) separate lanes because:
· they encourage more cycling (induced demand theory among other things),
· they can allow us to save energy by bypassing queues of motorists and their fat lane-hogging vehicles more easily,
· they can allow us to save energy and time by bypassing signals that are unnecessary for cyclists and walkers,
· they remove us slightly from the main stream of air pollution and
· they're usually more fun because we don't need to watch what idiot drivers are doing quite as much.
I'd like to see a link to these cyclists who insist on requiring them, but I bet they're not on this forum, and their riding opportunities in the UK will be very limited.
