3 ms·

The logic "remove helmets and players won't make hard hits" is like saying "remove seatbelts from cars and people will drive safer."

alex_stoddard 16y ago
A very poor analogy. You never deliberately initiate a collision in a car. Also being surrounded by a car body gives you a false sense of invulnerability.
- adolph 16y ago
  Sure, few people deliberately initiate a collision. However, that false sense of invulnerability you mention may induce behaviors that increase the likelihood of initiating a collision.
  - dmfdmf 16y ago
    I read once that the studies show that as cars got safer with better brakes, tires, seatbelts, airbags, etc. people increased their speed or took more risks to compensate so the overall risk stayed roughly the same.
andrew1 16y ago
In theory you're right, but probably not so in practice. Football players would see the consequences of the change much more quickly - they'd go from being able to dive at a player head first and have a cushioned impact to having their skull connect with something hard and feeling a lot of pain. I'd expect their behaviour would adapt in response to that. Similarly car drivers probably wouldn't drive any more safely until they experienced the consequences of crashing while not wearing a seat belt.
adolph 16y ago
That may not be far from the truth. It may be akin to the counter-intuitive removal of signs and signals from roads to increase safety: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html I think that the primary logic of the article is that helmets were designed to prevent skull fractures but an unintended outcome is an increase in concussions.
ShabbyDoo 16y ago
I believe some studies have shown that removing traffic control devices can actually reduce accident rates by forcing drivers to be more aware of traffic around them and make accommodations.
konad 16y ago
Make cars out of glass and put spikes on the dash and you'd see different results.
iwr 16y ago
Actually, there is a body of research attesting to your logic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.htm...

alex_stoddard 16y ago

A very poor analogy. You never deliberately initiate a collision in a car. Also being surrounded by a car body gives you a false sense of invulnerability.

adolph 16y ago
Sure, few people deliberately initiate a collision. However, that false sense of invulnerability you mention may induce behaviors that increase the likelihood of initiating a collision.
- dmfdmf 16y ago
  I read once that the studies show that as cars got safer with better brakes, tires, seatbelts, airbags, etc. people increased their speed or took more risks to compensate so the overall risk stayed roughly the same.

andrew1 16y ago

In theory you're right, but probably not so in practice. Football players would see the consequences of the change much more quickly - they'd go from being able to dive at a player head first and have a cushioned impact to having their skull connect with something hard and feeling a lot of pain. I'd expect their behaviour would adapt in response to that. Similarly car drivers probably wouldn't drive any more safely until they experienced the consequences of crashing while not wearing a seat belt.

adolph 16y ago

That may not be far from the truth. It may be akin to the counter-intuitive removal of signs and signals from roads to increase safety: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html I think that the primary logic of the article is that helmets were designed to prevent skull fractures but an unintended outcome is an increase in concussions.

ShabbyDoo 16y ago

I believe some studies have shown that removing traffic control devices can actually reduce accident rates by forcing drivers to be more aware of traffic around them and make accommodations.

konad 16y ago

Make cars out of glass and put spikes on the dash and you'd see different results.

iwr 16y ago

Actually, there is a body of research attesting to your logic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/11/peltzman_on_reg.htm...