F
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> I don't buy into the risk compensation argument. It's my belief that, if
> someone thinks something is too dangerous to do without a helmet, that
> person has a presupposition that a certain type of riding is dangerous... at
> least partly, and probably largely, because he/she has been told that a
> helmet is a good idea. The suggestion of using a helmet, by itself, is (in
> my humble opinion) more likely to result in more, not less-cautious
> behavior.
I don't see how someone can deny risk compensation due to helmets,
unless they're using some different definition of the term.
Have you never heard (or read) someone saying "I would not ride without
a helmet," or "I wouldn't ride in that location (or manner) without a
helmet"? We could be talking about mountain biking, or riding in city
traffic, or going down hills really fast, or riding on icy streets.
I've heard people make such claims for each of the above situations,
and more.
If a person rides that way just once, he's risk compensating. He's
performing a more risky activity, in his own mind, because he feels
protected. And he's confessing to it.
Again, it's not a problem if the increased protection at least equals
the increased risk. But when helmets tested for stationary topples are
touted as preventing almost all serious injuries, there is a problem.
- Frank Krygowski
>
> I don't buy into the risk compensation argument. It's my belief that, if
> someone thinks something is too dangerous to do without a helmet, that
> person has a presupposition that a certain type of riding is dangerous... at
> least partly, and probably largely, because he/she has been told that a
> helmet is a good idea. The suggestion of using a helmet, by itself, is (in
> my humble opinion) more likely to result in more, not less-cautious
> behavior.
I don't see how someone can deny risk compensation due to helmets,
unless they're using some different definition of the term.
Have you never heard (or read) someone saying "I would not ride without
a helmet," or "I wouldn't ride in that location (or manner) without a
helmet"? We could be talking about mountain biking, or riding in city
traffic, or going down hills really fast, or riding on icy streets.
I've heard people make such claims for each of the above situations,
and more.
If a person rides that way just once, he's risk compensating. He's
performing a more risky activity, in his own mind, because he feels
protected. And he's confessing to it.
Again, it's not a problem if the increased protection at least equals
the increased risk. But when helmets tested for stationary topples are
touted as preventing almost all serious injuries, there is a problem.
- Frank Krygowski