You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Its a semantic / pedantic point. If someone makes an error be it you or someone else its not luck – its an error.
It is luck whether you are involved in that error though. If you arrived 10 seconds later and missed the error that is lucky.
"success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"
Sadly, that’s quite untrue.
Yes, sorry, I did mean "On this thread" or more likely "On bicycle forums" but I didn't write that.
When a bus falls off a cliff it’s an error. The bloke who woke up ten minutes late that morning and missed the bus to work was lucky.
or more likely “On bicycle forums”
Sadly still won’t be true. Might be less prevalent (depends on the forum: CUK/YACF will lean one way but a triathlon/racing forum will lean the other) but there are people on two wheels, from professional racers to some bloke down the pub, who think their ideas about helmets should be imposed on others.
If there isn’t anyone on this forum with that view then I’ll eat my helmet (I don’t really mind—I don’t use it any more 😉).
@bez yup that's about the size of it, glad someone can read. And yes, lesson firmly learned. Sadly hindsight is something you only gain after you need it.
There are things we can do to make your own luck - riding defensively, maintaining our bikes and making sure they are fit for purpose. Sometimes though, shit happens outside of your control.
What about the bloke at the bottom of the cliff?
The well-researched fact is that people take more risks when they feel protected, and the inevitable result of wearing a helmet is that they feel more protected.
One fact leading to one extrapolation. Do I feel more protected wearing a helmet? Do I bollocks. I'm in serious trouble if I get taken out by a car, this is certain. The helmet might take the edge off any brain injury if I hit my head, but that's all. I'm pretty sure that most people don't go flying around with gay abandon purely because they're wearing a helmet. If more helmet wearers take more risks, then in my view it's more likely to be the other way round - I like riding in a particular style, that I've acknowledged is dangerous, so I'm going to lid up - in the same way that MTBers wear helmets because they know they are taking risks.
There's a lot of big assumptions and bollocks extrapolations on this thread.
On a personal basis I’m as sceptical as you are, or at least was for a long time. Why would I take more risks just because I have a strap-on hat? Seems daft. But the human subconscious is a powerful thing, and risk compensation is a fairly well-researched effect with plenty of evidence to support it. And as with many things, individuals may respond differently, but at a population level it’s significant. It’s not assumption or bollocks extrapolation; quite the reverse: you’re assuming you’re immune to the effect and extrapolating that to everyone else.
And yes, clearly people will choose to wear a helmet when they want to do something they consider sufficiently dangerous—we can all agree on that, I suspect. But that’s a different thing (albeit with its own contribution to injury statistics that underpins the effects seen when NZ introduced helmets: injuries didn’t fall much because the people who were already choosing to wear helmets and were therefore unaffected by compulsion tended to be the ones getting injured).
I see it as a bit opposite. Because I nearly always wear a lid that is my default riding style. I'm fairly aggressive in holding my position on the road but I'm careful in making sure I'm seen and acknowledged before crossing traffic or entering the traffic stream.
If I'm not wearing one then I'm definitely more tentative as I feel more exposed.
I'll admit that is just semantics though...
Other road users? Can't say I'm sold on the impact of my lack of lid on their behaviour. Generally if someone gets too close they aren't paying attention and probably don't even realise you are there, let alone if you are wearing a helmet or not.
However...this is a very VERY small sample set, and also will be highly influenced by the style of local traffic, the times I commute (generally outside of peak), the state of the road surface and the weather (I've come off twice on ice). It also goes back to the individual risk Vs average risk debate.
The Isle of Wight does not see the same demographic of driver as central London. I suspect they are generally older and blinder (it's always cloudy for them for some reason), but slower and less aggressive 😉
Try driving whilst not wearing a seatbelt if you're not up for a bike ride sans helmet. However cautiously/defensively you usually do these things tell me you don't feel a bit more vulnerable? The risk homeostasis thing is a thing and probably why kneepads make me go a bit faster. Now, about kneepads...
risk compensation is a fairly well-researched effect with plenty of evidence to support it.
Specifically with respect to helmets and cycling?
what Tim said. When I used to go to work, I'd either take the Brompton on the train, or drive part of the way and Brompton the rest (avoids traffic)
On the rare occasion I forgot to take my helmet I definitely felt more vulnerable, didn't jump into gaps in the traffic, etc. Daft because as others have said, a plastic hat wouldn't save me if I got run over by the 168 bus or the Royal Mail truck, but psychology.
Molgrips - risk compensation / homeostasis is a well documented phenomenon in the human psyche. You can see several folk on here outlining it. Try riding without a hat and see if you feel more vulnerable - that is risk commpensation
I see it as a bit opposite. Because I nearly always wear a lid that is my default riding style. I’m fairly aggressive in holding my position on the road but I’m careful in making sure I’m seen and acknowledged before crossing traffic or entering the traffic stream.
If I’m not wearing one then I’m definitely more tentative as I feel more exposed.
That is precisely it - that is risk compensation - it works both ways
TJ
I did say it was semantics 😉
We need a control.
I'll ride my commute for several months. Alternate between wearing a brightly coloured helmet and one disguised as a bobble hat.
Just need a GPS, a proximity sensor and data logger and we are good to go, oh and two otherwise identical helmets in different colours.
No need to. If you feel safer with a helmet and more vulnerable without that is risk compensation
There is, literally, nothing to be gained by making helmet wearing compulsory.
There are, literally, all sorts of things to lose by making helmet wearing compulsory.
This is an argument that should be being lost by someone else elsewhere.
I'm really disappointed that it is even being chewed over here.
I’m really disappointed that it is even being chewed over here.
I am not sure it is. It is just the usual discussion around why/why not wear one rather than whether they should be compulsory. From any comments made on compulsion I don't see any that are for compulsion.
The problem is that if they become compulsory it won't be because cyclists have asked them to be will it.
At first I thought it looked stupidly bulbous on my head...but hey my head would look stupidly ugly cracked open like a melon on the street!! a year later and it's still working well- I now also commute on a 40mph fast ebike, and wear this helmet in warmer weather. (I use a Moon snowboard helmet w/ visor mostly in colder weather) Also, my 13 yr old son now flies behind me on his own eskate- far too fast! He fought me tooth and nail, but he'll also be wearing this helmet!
40mph e-Motorbike, surely?
Don't you mean a Moped and illegal e+scooter?
At 40mph it isn't an eBike according to law. I'm hoping you have full license, insurance, registered, MOT...?
And a good helmet!
40mph means its not a moped either - they have to top out at 33 mph
Troll of the month and it's only the 10th day of October.