Overheard at the bike stand

[Bicycler]

"You have to be so careful if you're not wearing a helmet"

Risk compensation in action

[Mike Sales]

"You have to be so careful if you're not wearing a helmet"

That phrase sounds as if the speaker behaves very differently with or without a hat. They may be at risk of overcompensating, and increasing their risk level whilst wearing their foam hat.

[TonyR]

A bit like those people you meet who deny risk compensation exists but then happily tell you they would never ride a bike without wearing a helmet.

[Bicycler]

I hadn't thought of that. It's a good example to use

[kwackers]

A bit like those people you meet who deny risk compensation exists but then happily tell you they would never ride a bike without wearing a helmet.

Why are they mutually exclusive?

You can think it's dangerous enough to warrant an helmet without believing that wearing one makes you take risks.

[keepontriking]

"You have to be so careful if you're not wearing a helmet"

Risk compensation in action

Did the bike stand have a low roof?

[profpointy]

A bit like those people you meet who deny risk compensation exists but then happily tell you they would never ride a bike without wearing a helmet.

Why are they mutually exclusive?

You can think it's dangerous enough to warrant an helmet without believing that wearing one makes you take risks.

Well that's what risk compensation is. Someone thinks cycling is too dangerous without a helmet, but is prepared to cycle with one, is by definition, prepared to undertake a more risky activity in their eyes because they are now wearing a helmet.

[kwackers]

Well that's what risk compensation is. Someone thinks cycling is too dangerous without a helmet, but is prepared to cycle with one, is by definition, prepared to undertake a more risky activity in their eyes because they are now wearing a helmet.

Errr - no.

Risk compensation is taking more risks because you believe you're safer. i.e. riding harder/faster etc.
Simply wearing a helmet because you believe they work doesn't imply you'll take more risks, it simply implies you think that helmets work.

[Bicycler]

Risk compensation is taking more risks because you believe you're safer. i.e. riding harder/faster etc.

Or deciding to ride a bike wearing a helmet when you would choose not to ride the same bike if you did not have a helmet to use.

[Bicycler]

"You have to be so careful if you're not wearing a helmet"

Risk compensation in action

Did the bike stand have a low roof?

Wish it had a roof...

[kwackers]

Risk compensation is taking more risks because you believe you're safer. i.e. riding harder/faster etc.

Or deciding to ride a bike wearing a helmet when you would choose not to ride the same bike if you did not have a helmet to use.

OK, I'll give you that. But strictly speaking risk compensation to me really implies the nuances of how someone behaves rather than a on/off switch. (This is certainly the case in how we'd normally discuss risk compensation and helmets on these forums since the associated conversation is why helmet wearers don't suffer less injuries rather than why non-helmet wearers won't ride bikes...)

I guess I'm of the opinion that someone who refuses to ride the bike without a helmet is simply taking a principled stand rather than really changing their behaviour.

[profpointy]

Interesting choice of words - refusing to ride helmetless as a "principled" stand.

Not trying to have a pop by the way, but given the debate tends to degenerate into matters of faith (or principle) it is a telling way of putting it (maybe?)

[TonyR]

I guess I'm of the opinion that someone who refuses to ride the bike without a helmet is simply taking a principled stand rather than really changing their behaviour.

And what principle would that be that they are standing for?

[[XAP]Bob]

The only principle is "cycling is too dangerous" which implies that the helmet sufficiently mitigates the risk.

Risk compensation in action - easily visible, because it's a massive change in behaviour rather than a subtle one.

[kwackers]

Interesting choice of words - refusing to ride helmetless as a "principled" stand.

Not trying to have a pop by the way, but given the debate tends to degenerate into matters of faith (or principle) it is a telling way of putting it (maybe?)

I didn't think you are.

I realised that in essence my argument was wrong - but as I pointed out this was mainly because I'd taken the usual discussion of risk compensation as a mechanism for explaining why helmeted rider have no fewer injuries than non-helmeted rather than as a more 'overall' picture.

However there are people out there (and on here) that think that helmets should be compulsory, I'd imagine that they always wore an helmet out of principle.
I guess it's no different to many aspects of cycling especially where some folk will follow the letter of the law rather than do what's safe. I suspect there are no shortage of martyrs to the cause in that respect...