BlueRider wrote:Mike Sales wrote:I think risk compensation and especially risk aversion are misleading terms. Risk homeostasis is better.
I may have misunderstood your thinking, but I take it that you are not a helmet advocate? That is, you may wear one, but do not venture to give anyone else advice on the subject.
Advice should be freely given so that it can be freely returned.
My own feelings are that helmets are only a good thing, especially so with young children and i feel the rewards of wearing them outway any percieved risk (especially so for children). However, i would not mandate their use in law and would actively campaign against those who would have that law enacted.
My own experiences of cycling have taught me that for me, being visible and wearing a helmet is an absolute positive.
I wouldn't force that on others but i do wince when i see other cyclists doing otherwise.
Helmets for kids are the worst thing you can do, you're putting them at more risk of harm fgs, have you bothered to look at the testing of kids when they wear helmets even when not cycling they take far greater risks even though the helmet isn't part of the activity.
You must also think helmets are a good thing for young children in the home and when in a motorvehicle as well, given the number of deaths in those situations exceed those on bicycle with regards to head injuries?
You say that rewards outweigh the risks and yet time and again not just in cycling we know this is simply untrue. Those pushing the boundaries like those in sport and those who are less able to know where the safe boundaries lie are always the greatest at risk when donning PPE and yet are the two groups who people insist should wear it, despite the evidence showing that it's a load of rubbish!