3 ms·

Risk compensation was my excuse to not wear a helmet when I biked to work. My argument was that the false sense of security meant that I would bike more rashly

Risk compensation was my excuse to not wear a helmet when I biked to work. My argument was that the false sense of security meant that I would bike more rashly increasing my chances of getting into an accident. In reality, when I did wear a helmet, I did not bike more rashly. If anything, the helmet was a constant reminder of the dangers involved in city biking which meant I was possibly more alert than I would have been without it.

blahedo 5y ago
IME the argument on bike helmets is a little different: it's not that requiring helmets will encourage riskier biking behaviour, it's that requiring helmets will shift people to drive instead (and that an extra car on the road is increasing danger to _others_). It may still be a bogus argument, but it's definitely distinct from the risk compensation argument given in the article.
mjmahone17 5y ago
The one thing helmet laws seem to do that may be a public health risk, at least in cities with bike share systems, is suppress how many people ride. When you cannot ride a bike without a helmet, a good chunk of people will opt to take a car or walk instead of using a bike share. To my knowledge, the number of cyclist collisions stays relatively constant with the number of cyclists: more cyclists mean around the same total number of collisions, which is fewer on a per trip basis. As a benefit, by acting as a natural barrier between deadly fast steel boxes and pedestrians, having a lot of cyclists also saves pedestrian lives.
NoPicklez 5y ago
Coming from a country where we all have to wear helmets by law (Australia) I've personally not understood the risk compensation aspect as I never experiencing biking without a helmet. However, I can understand the argument of it potentially reducing the number of people wanting to ride a bike. Especially for casual riding inner city or suburbs.
globular-toast 5y ago
On the road, especially as a bike user, your behaviour is not the most important factor. By far the biggest risk to you on the road are motorists. There is evidence [0] to show that motorists pass helmeted cyclists more closely and humanoids with long (feminine) hair less closely. Similarly, purely anecdotal (but may have been studied), those white lines they paint on the road and call "bike lanes" cause motorists to pass closer (they drive right up to the white line). [0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

blahedo 5y ago

IME the argument on bike helmets is a little different: it's not that requiring helmets will encourage riskier biking behaviour, it's that requiring helmets will shift people to drive instead (and that an extra car on the road is increasing danger to _others_). It may still be a bogus argument, but it's definitely distinct from the risk compensation argument given in the article.

mjmahone17 5y ago

The one thing helmet laws seem to do that may be a public health risk, at least in cities with bike share systems, is suppress how many people ride. When you cannot ride a bike without a helmet, a good chunk of people will opt to take a car or walk instead of using a bike share. To my knowledge, the number of cyclist collisions stays relatively constant with the number of cyclists: more cyclists mean around the same total number of collisions, which is fewer on a per trip basis. As a benefit, by acting as a natural barrier between deadly fast steel boxes and pedestrians, having a lot of cyclists also saves pedestrian lives.

NoPicklez 5y ago

Coming from a country where we all have to wear helmets by law (Australia) I've personally not understood the risk compensation aspect as I never experiencing biking without a helmet. However, I can understand the argument of it potentially reducing the number of people wanting to ride a bike. Especially for casual riding inner city or suburbs.

globular-toast 5y ago

On the road, especially as a bike user, your behaviour is not the most important factor. By far the biggest risk to you on the road are motorists. There is evidence [0] to show that motorists pass helmeted cyclists more closely and humanoids with long (feminine) hair less closely. Similarly, purely anecdotal (but may have been studied), those white lines they paint on the road and call "bike lanes" cause motorists to pass closer (they drive right up to the white line). [0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm