CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Post Reply
Mike Sales
Posts: 6469
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Mike Sales »

drossall wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 1:41pm
Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 12:05pmStandard risk homeostasis theory stipulates that the safety benefit should be known to the subject...
Strictly, it's about what the subject believes. If the subject believes a safety method to be highly effective, that subject may take more risk. If the measure is not in fact as effective as the subject believes, then the outcome may be negative. For example, jlumley100, who apparently believes that a helmet can offer protection from a fast-moving motor vehicle on a DC course, would definitely be expected to get a negative safety effect from wearing one.
Thank you for that crucial clarification.

The huge importance of these safety measures is constantly emphasised by many sources.
To ride or drive without is dangerous, but wearing a helmet or belt is said to keep you safe.
It might be calculated to induce the overvaluation of passive safety measures.
Last edited by Mike Sales on 10 Jan 2022, 2:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
mattheus
Posts: 2356
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

drossall wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 1:37pm I think perhaps that you have not read the thread before posting that :lol:
It's like whack-a-mole. Same in every Helmet forum; we can discuss the nuances, and highlight the many many studies, but then a week later some blowhard will see the thread title and wade in with the same uneducated nonsense.

"It's just common sense!!"
"I already do this - why would anyone else NOT want to wear these things?!?"
"Anyone not sharing my judgement must be an idiot - and doesn't care about head injuries!!!"

etc.


So we have to explain it all over again ... :roll:

You wonder how humanity ever evolved sometimes. :lol:
Mike Sales
Posts: 6469
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Mike Sales »

mattheus wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 2:38pm

It's like whack-a-mole. Same in every Helmet forum; we can discuss the nuances, and highlight the many many studies, but then a week later some blowhard will see the thread title and wade in with the same uneducated nonsense.

"It's just common sense!!"
"I already do this - why would anyone else NOT want to wear these things?!?"
"Anyone not sharing my judgement must be an idiot - and doesn't care about head injuries!!!"

etc.


So we have to explain it all over again ... :roll:

You wonder how humanity ever evolved sometimes. :lol:
What can one forum do against so much propaganda?
The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.
Jdsk
Posts: 12791
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 2:42pmWhat can one forum do against so much propaganda?
I suggest discussing the evidence. With specific questions rather than tribal polarisation. And keeping the evidence separate from our individual decisions and from public policy.

Jonathan
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 4353
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by pjclinch »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 10:55am
pjclinch wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 10:41am

I'd be interested to know how one would accurately determine that the contestants in a top level Madison or World Tour bunch sprint would not put in quite so much effort if they weren't wearing crash helmets...

Is it "I can go faster because I'm safer!" or is it "I'm going as fast as I can, might as well add a bit of PPE!"?
I suspect you'd have instances of both across a riding population, as usually the case where psychology is involved it's going to be very hard to make a general case.
Yes indeed.
We can only look at cases like taxi drivers with anti-lock brakes, who braked later and followed closer.
I can look at myself riding down a twisty descent on my 'bent (difficult to go over the bars, hydraulic brakes, low centre of mass, full suspension, built like a tank) compared to my Brompton to see that a more capable vehicle will make me happier to take more risks.

But that's not quite the same as a bunch sprint on a flattish road or slight up where there isn't much clear reason not to go as fast as humanly possible, especially if there's a big reward for getting over the line first. Did sprinters take up helmet wearing earlier so they could go faster? I have my doubts...

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
drossall
Posts: 5507
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by drossall »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 1:57pmThank you for that crucial clarification.

The huge importance of these safety measures is constantly emphasised by many sources.
To ride or drive without is dangerous, but wearing a helmet or belt is said to keep you safe.
It might be calculated to induce the overvaluation of passive safety measures.
Which arguably is why shared spaces and other removals of road markings and the like work so well. Road users believe that these things make life more dangerous. It's even possible that they actually do, but not by nearly as much as people assume. So the extra caution induced far outweighs any actual additional risk, and casualty rates generally go down significantly.
mattsccm
Posts: 4203
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattsccm »

My comment on p5 and copied there as well clearly wasn't clear enough for the person who quoted it. A mandatory Covid jab will save the country and NHS an unspeakable amount of cost and distress. (for what it's worth I think that we should never be told to look after ourselves) Imposing helmets for hill climbs won't. To try and suggest that they are the same is rather simplistic is it not? I will only accept compulsory safety when all eventualities are covered. Ban ladders, beer, glasses, electric mowers, parachutes etc. Helmet compulsion is the same as helmet compulsion for motorcycles or seat belts in cars. Immoral. You have no right to decide how I kill myslef.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3062
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by fastpedaller »

drossall wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 1:41pm
Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 12:05pmStandard risk homeostasis theory stipulates that the safety benefit should be known to the subject...
Strictly, it's about what the subject believes. If the subject believes a safety method to be highly effective, that subject may take more risk. If the measure is not in fact as effective as the subject believes, then the outcome may be negative. For example, jlumley100, who apparently believes that a helmet can offer protection from a fast-moving motor vehicle on a DC course, would definitely be expected to get a negative safety effect from wearing one.
Indeed. reminds me of some colleagues I once worked with. There was an opportunity to 'be assessed and take guidance' from an Advanced Driving Instructor. Colleague 1 drove his own car with the DI as a passenger and the DI commented "you can't be criticised for getting to close behind other vehicles" to which the response was "The brakes on this 30 year-old car are ****, so I don't drive close". Colleague 2 drove his car (going down twisty lanes) and the DI told him he wasn't 'making good progress' ie driving too slow. They rounded a bend and avoided a huge tractor, colleague 2 said "that's why I was driving slowly"
Colleague 3 (who should have known better - we worked in the Auto Industry doing design work) was driving a development car and reported to me that he nearly drove into the back of a car in the wet; apparently, it was MY FAULT because I hadn't alerted him to the fact that said vehicle didn't have ABS (this was many years ago). I told him I had no control over how much he kept his foot on the accelerator pedal, and I hope he learnt a useful lesson :roll:
Jdsk
Posts: 12791
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 1:57pm
drossall wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 1:41pm
Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 12:05pmStandard risk homeostasis theory stipulates that the safety benefit should be known to the subject...
Strictly, it's about what the subject believes. If the subject believes a safety method to be highly effective, that subject may take more risk. If the measure is not in fact as effective as the subject believes, then the outcome may be negative. For example, jlumley100, who apparently believes that a helmet can offer protection from a fast-moving motor vehicle on a DC course, would definitely be expected to get a negative safety effect from wearing one.
Thank you for that crucial clarification.
Isn't risk compensation about how people behave? Not about their knowledge or beliefs?

Jonathan
Stevek76
Posts: 1214
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Stevek76 »

Re seat belts, think Lund is a bit incorrect there. Depends on how fast the driver tends to go. A driver down the slower end of the spectrum may not really notice. For the kind who likes to throw the car around corners and so on then there certainly will be active feedback from a seatbelt.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Steady rider
Posts: 2452
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

Isn't risk compensation about how people behave? Not about their knowledge or beliefs?
Is behaviour and risk compensation depended on knowledge or beliefs?
Jdsk
Posts: 12791
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 3:42pm
Isn't risk compensation about how people behave? Not about their knowledge or beliefs?
Is behaviour and risk compensation depended on knowledge or beliefs?
Please see posts from drossall and Mike Sales above. As quoted by me above.

Thanks

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2452
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

When I was walking along a narrow road with no footpath and poor lighting conditions, I took extra notice of any traffic approaching compared to if a footpath/pavement had been provided. I expect this is one example of risk compensation, taking extra care if the situation seem more hazardous. If what people wear makes them think it improves their safety they may in turn change their behaviour.
Jdsk
Posts: 12791
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 3:57pm When I was walking along a narrow road with no footpath and poor lighting conditions, I took extra notice of any traffic approaching compared to if a footpath/pavement had been provided. I expect this is one example of risk compensation, taking extra care if the situation seem more hazardous. If what people wear makes them think it improves their safety they may in turn change their behaviour.
The relevant question is in which situations this does or doesn't occur, and how big the effect is. And identifying those is amenable to evidence-based methods of study.

Jonathan
Mike Sales
Posts: 6469
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Mike Sales »

Jdsk wrote: 18 Jan 2022, 1:17pm Isn't risk compensation about how people behave? Not about their knowledge or beliefs?

Jonathan
The point is that peoples' beliefs (whether well founded or not) about risks and rewards inform their behaviour.
This is the crux of the idea.
Post Reply