5 ms·

Yes, but it IS possible to do research that untangles these effects. Here is a review (from just 3 years ago) of such studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/s

• shkkmo 4y ago
  I have some issues with that study. One major one is they basically rule out half the effects of helmets as a "logical fallacy": > Risk compensation, as it is typically defined and understood, is only one of six possible scenarios, namely a usual non-helmet wearer puts on a helmet and increases their risk taking. Importantly, evidence in the opposite direction, i.e., taking a helmet off leads to less risky behaviour, is not evidence in support of risk compensation as it is a type of logical fallacy After reviewing that article none of the studies are convincing either way. The only studies that actually look for causality are the ones which only measure speed to asses risk. Those are also the one that I would qualify as positive results but were listed as negative results because of that above mentioned logical fallacy. So while is is possible to untangle these effects, it has yet to be done properly to show a clear result either way.