Risk Compensation (helmets)

IanMSpencer wrote:

I skimmed it so may have missed the point, but I think most cyclists are aware that falling off a bike hurts regardless of helmet, so I think the psycological suggestion is flawed. For someone to ride more riskily, they would believe that the only thing that hurts when you fall off is your head. Looking around at my experience and my fellow club members, you'd need hip padding and shoulder padding to start getting to levels of belief that might consider risk taking.

If you consider mountain biking in comparison, there you have cycling where the riders are intent on taking risks - and hey, bingo, they do pad up in response, far more than helmets, so those who understand falling off a bike know that a helmet is only one part of the equation.

As to the theory (not sure it is in the article or not) that drivers drive more closely if they see a helmet - that doesn't work for the drivers who don't even seem to recognise I am there, and when we are riding in a bunch, they fixate on two abreast for their close pass logic, and generally it gives too much credence to the idea of a thought process being involved!

Interesting counter point, although humans are not primarily rational creatures, and most decisions are made at least with a significant amount of subconscious processing. This processing has been honed over hundreds of millions of years of evolution, sadly none of which benefitting from the influence of genetic success relating to propensity to wear polystyrene adornments.

on a related note, one of the best examples of risk compensation I I have found was when training drivers who were certain that they would never do such a thing when the topic was brought up. 

A little while later the same drivers would dispute HWC stopping distances, saying that they were out of date, and cos brakes were so much more efficient these days you didn't have to leave those distances.....

Interesting about brakes -

I was on my rim bike earlier in the week and had to brake, then thought to myself 'these aren't my disc brakes'.

Was I riding a bit nearer to the car in front as I thought I could brake later and easier ?

You were probably just inadvertently going faster because your bike was so much lighter and more aero...

I assume this is tongue in cheek !

hirsute wrote:

Interesting about brakes -

I was on my rim bike earlier in the week and had to brake, then thought to myself 'these aren't my disc brakes'.

Was I riding a bit nearer to the car in front as I thought I could brake later and easier ?

I'm aware that I do ride my V-braked bike a bit faster, brake later, etc than my centre-pull-canti-braked bike...

I skim read it too, but Im not sure it even brought cyclists into its logic at anypoint, and what topics it did raise I do think people often risk compensate as a result of them, but then so trying to fit our own views on risks and risk compensation to cyclists from it seems like a doomed exercise imo.

Simon E wrote:

Perhaps I'm just more risk-averse than some. Maybe risk compensation as a result of wearing a helmet does apply to some people; however, if someone wears a helmet all the time when they cycle then wouldn't it stop being a factor in their decision-making and risk evaluation?

As a long-time Circuit rider of motorcycles, benefiting from decades of research and development in personal protective clothing, i.e. Superbike / GP Racing, my perception of riding a bicycle on the public highway using the typical sporting garments developed for that is a significantly greater risk applies. Comparing a bicycle helmet to a motorcycle helmet does not lead to confidence, never mind over-confidence.

Risk compensation is a fine hypothesis, but where is the data to demonstrate that it is a common or prevalent behaviour?

Surely most people can appreciate that the whole cyclist must remain healthy, not just the head, and that cycling garments provide negligible protection against impact or tarmac surfaces...

There's the constant refrain from people who wear helmets and fall off of 'my stupid hat saved my life'
Most people haven't raced motorbikes or got much reasoning power, and I believe that once they put on their 'magic' polystyrene hats they think they're protected and so ride accordingly

The motorcycle comparison is interesting. I used to do lots of track days too but would never have considered going out on the track in anything but leathers and full face helmet; I would have rode very different in a t shirt and jeans. I definitely undertook riskier behaviour due to the reassurance provided by the PPE but the actual risk of injury and death was significantly reduced by the PPE. So where the risk of injury and death is actually reduced by the risk reduction measures then it doesn't really matter if people change their behaviour. When it does matter is when the actual risk isn't reduced - just people's perception - and then the risk increases.

Podc wrote:

where the risk of injury and death is actually reduced by the risk reduction measures then it doesn't really matter if people change their behaviour. When it does matter is when the actual risk isn't reduced - just people's perception - and then the risk increases.

Not quite. What matters is whether the risk reduction from the measures is greater than any increased risk from changed behaviour, and then whether that net gain in safety is worth any loss of freedom from the imposition of the measures.

Arguably, it also matters who that risk is to. If an activity poses a danger to a third party, it's more reasonable to impose measures on those taking part in that activity, before demanding that the third party protect themselves. Or if a measure increases overall safety, but does so by protecting those taking part at the expense of the safety of bystanders, then that's morally questionable, since the former at least have a choice about whether to take part.

As far as this article goes, it seems to me that it's guilty of precisely the inverse of what it's arguing against. It criticises people for taking the risk compensation concept and applying it liberally as an objection to any proposed safety measure without evidence. But then it turns around and takes a handful of cases where it doesn't appear to outweigh the benefits, and tries to use these to argue that we should basically ignore risk compensation altogether. But since every intervention is different, and will have a unique psychological impact, the more valid approach would be to try to model what role it might play on a case-by-case basis.