Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

Really? You're like the guy who asks questions at the end of lectures when everyone else wants to go home.

How do you know this?

Same way you'd know if you put the effort in; read. There's a wealth of material freely available about how humans deal (badly, from a mathematical point of view) with risk.

Another bad thing about risk compensation is the waste of resources. 'Obviously beneficial' safety measures get implemented, people feel safer, so risk-compensate the danger back up to where it was before and nothing is achieved.

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.

So much fail, where to start?

"Risk compensation" is not about the general kind of mitigation we all do all the time, it's a very specific concept related to the theory of risk homoeostasis, whereby humans have a desired level of risk and any additional mitigation techniques are counteracted by opposing behavioural changes. There are live arguments about the validity (or at least the universal applicability) of risk homoeostasis theory, and there is a lot of good behavioural work (and more to be done) on devising risk mitigation techniques for which populations will under-compensate, so that you are not, as moth points out above, just pissing money away.

Yes, accidents happen, that's why throughout this thread the serious commentators deride anecdote, since it tells us nothing about the statistical effects of various interventions across large populations. The randomness often turns out to have a pattern to it if you watch enough people for long enough.

Where is this evidence you speak of, especially evidence for point 3?

I don't like helmets. Never have done. They feel too restrictive and my head gets hot. Having said that, i've never owned a helmet worth more than £35.00. Would it make a difference if I spent a bit more?
Also, i was out on a road ride before Christmas out to Southend. We took in some lovely country lanes and on one particular descent I noticed the speedo up around the 45mph mark. I didn't have a helmet on. At the bottom of the hill was a fuck off pot hole. We all managed to avoid it but it got me thinking. I've decided that I WANT to wear a helmet whilst out on country roads, doing silly speeds.
However I don't want to wear one when commuting / riding through the city as i feel much safer.
I don't get the logic really, but its the way i feel about it..

Jeez / MDCC... You may continue

^ that's my reasoning too. I want to wear one when riding that isn't going to the pub/work.
Get down to a bike shop, any Evans or whatever will do, and try some out. The more expensive ones tend to be lighter and lower profiled. Different makes fit in different ways, so it's best to try them on to see what's comfortable, just like shoes. I ignored my own advice and had to buy a few before getting one that actually fits.

I've got a Giro Prolight and a Louis Garneau X-Lite, in the past I've used a Met Stradivarius, Specialized 2D and other mid and high end helmets and they're all hot to wear the more you spend you tend to get better padding and slightly more ventilation (which really doesn't make that much difference).

Get the one your more likely to wear, i.e. the most comfortable and which makes you look less like a dick.

On my own here maybe, but I don't find that my 2D really makes much difference to head temperatures.

Even on a very hot day it's only the back of my head that gets sweaty, such is the profusion of vents in the front.

I only notice my catlike on the front of my forehead, but I'm going to sand it down a bit and attach some different/thinner pads.

They look a bit too "Mars Attacks" for me

Cheers for the help. Great excuse to go and visit a few bike shops. You have to hand it to Evans, the range is pretty spectacular in there. For bikes too.
I like the look of the catlike, it just don't like the look of me. Will try out the 2D.
Ta

Okay MDCC, where is this evidence around increased risk taking and increased accident rates when wearing helmets due to sloppy cycling and driving?

(Yes, I do realise you never suggested this!)

(1) The evidence suggests that bike helmets are not very effective at preventing serious injury assuming a given accident happens.

Not quite. The range of accidents where the difference between the injuries to the unprotected head and those to the protected head is significant is small, so the overall probability of being involved in accident where use of a helmet will have a material effect on the outcome is very small.

(2) The evidence suggests that bike helmets are fairly effective at making what would have been a minor head injury even more minor assuming a given accident happens. But this is not very important.

Not quite, again. Bike helmets are effective at doing what they are designed to do, but what they are designed to do is not very well correlated with what they would need to do to make a significant material difference to the outcome of incidents where the helmet comes into play.

(3) The evidence suggests that wearing a helmet increases cyclists' risk taking and even more importantly the risk taking of drivers around the cyclist. Accidents are therefore more likely when a helmet is worn.

See below, and see general risk compensation research. I'm not sure that adult cyclists ride differently when wearing helmets as long as they are doing he same kind of cycling; that some of them choose helmets for some kinds of cycling and go without for others indicates some kind of risk compensation behaviour, but that doesn't prove that they would ride differently if you added/removed a helmet.

(4) Taking (1) to (3) together we can safely say that there is no evidence that helmet wearing makes any real improvement in safety, helmets should not be compulsory, nor should they be encouraged.

Taking all the evidence together, including evidence of the health benefits of cycling and the fact that helmet compulsion puts off some people from cycling at all, and also taking into account the general libertarian principle that only an enormous public good justifies state impositions on private behaviour, helmet compulsion is a bad thing. The costs and benefits of helmet use should, as with any product, be presented honestly, leaving people to draw their own conclusions.

Okay MDCC, where is this evidence around increased risk taking and increased accident rates when wearing helmets due to sloppy cycling and driving?

(Yes, I do realise you never suggested this!)

Some evidence from practical trials suggests that motorists pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets, I think the CTC probably has the results on their site. Also, looking like a female gets you a wider berth, so go figure.

+1
Sorted

Some evidence from practical trials suggests that motorists pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets, I think the CTC probably has the results on their site. Also, looking like a female gets you a wider berth, so go figure.

I would be amazed if the drivers I encounter would even be observant enough to notice a helmet or not (seriously). I actually think a hi viz top would have more of an effect but have no evidence!

The overtaking study was done by Ian Walker five years ago:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

Personally, I wasn't convinced by the study at the time, but I can't remember why, would have to read up on it again.

This is something that's currently going on, again involving Ian Walker:

http://road.cc/content/news/37646-new-helmet-study-group-receives-european-funding

I would be amazed if the drivers I encounter would even be observant enough to notice a helmet or not (seriously). I actually think a hi viz top would have more of an effect but have no evidence!

You do not necessarily have to consciously see something in order for it to effect your behaviour.

I kill because I hear things all the time

Nice rundown there MDCC. This bit especially:

Taking all the evidence together, including evidence of the health benefits of cycling and the fact that helmet compulsion puts off some people from cycling at all, and also taking into account the general libertarian principle that only an enormous public good justifies state impositions on private behaviour, helmet compulsion is a bad thing. The costs and benefits of helmet use should, as with any product, be presented honestly, leaving people to draw their own conclusions.

Can we just collapse all of this thread down to this morsel and lock it, please?

You do not necessarily have to consciously see something in order for it to effect your behaviour.

'affect'

The other version is an interesting notion, though.

:)

You do not necessarily have to consciously see something in order for it to effect your behaviour.

Hanging on the driver acting on their sub conscience is not good.

Wearing a helmet may or may not change the better drivers behaviour but I really don't think this comes into play when the the bad drivers either just don't care or are not actually capable of thinking about what they are doing/driving in auto pilot (not sure which but probably a mixture)

acting on their sub conscience

Do you want to get this one, Oliver? Seems like your area.

'affect'

The other version is an interesting notion, though.

:)

Ooops cheers for the correction Oliver, considered a ninja edit but well its probably been a bit too long now.