You are reading a single comment by @Orko42 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Orko42
The mere phrase 'risk compensation' seems a very odd vernacular to use. If there's risk, you as a human being have to make a decision how to manage that effectively to reduce any potential risk to you, and by that merit, those around you. The phrase makes no real sense.
Yes, there is a wealth of material to support how we humans deal with risk and risk management. Some of it has merit, though basing to a mathematical solution fails me. Any decision you make, positive or negative in perception has a sequence of consequences, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. That's decision making, you cannot always get it right, but the level of getting it wrong is only measured in the resultant action - no? By any measure of success that a good decision results in, you weigh that success as a positive result and seldom analyse it as in your perception you have achieved a positive result - No? Yes?
None of that has anything to do with or not wearing a helmet. Anyone can read out statistics in areas most likely to cause accidents, but however you percieve it, by their definition, they are accidents. You can Risk compensate all you like, for instance, should you wish to ride low lit backstreets without lights or a helmet at 2am in the morning, and seemingly get home free without incident most times. There will be one time when it does'nt work out by a factor no equation can anticipate - because it's an accident.
Helmet decision unaffected by random acts of force, nature, gravity and inherent ineptitude.