From: Roland Perry on
In message <shitu5hjanfo88s6btk6431urhdlsjg201(a)4ax.com>, at 17:38:06 on
Sat, 15 May 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>I have asked these people (Chapman, Perry, Clinch) time and time again
>for evidence of risk compensation with regards to wearing cycle
>helmets.
>
>They have no evidence.
>
>The best Perry was able to do was refer me some page numbers in a
>book.

You've changed your tune, last time you accused me of not providing a
page number.

>He could not even produce a paragraph from those pages which
>backed up his stance.

That's because you need to read the book yourself. Anything I quote will
be accused of being selective.
--
Roland Perry
From: Derek C on
On 15 May, 17:38, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:21:45 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7-...(a)cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I always wear a cycle helmet when riding my bike.
>
> >Thanks for the re-post. I certainly haven't seen that posting before,
> >but if I had in the context of my question I would have then pointed out
> >that this would appear to be an example of risk compensation. Wearing a
> >cycling helmet in the UK is not compulsory, thus presumably you are
> >making a personal decision to expose yourself to a perceived risk only
> >when wearing a helmet. i.e. the helmet is modifying your attitude to the
> >risks of cycling.
>
> >Mike
>
> Rubbish.
>
> I do not ride the bike as a result of wearing a helmet.
> I wear the helmet as a result of riding the bike.
> I do not believe that I take extra risks because I am wearing a
> helmet.
>
> I think you are confusing risk compensation with common sense.
>
> If I wear a helmet - I believe on balance it will do more good than
> harm if I am involved in an accident.
>
> I am not aware of any research which proves that if one wears a cycle
> helmet, then one takes more risks.
>
> In fact I would go as far to say that there is no evidence of this
> "phenomena" regarding cycle helmets.
>
> It is something which a few smart-arses here have latched on to - so
> they can say : Oh  - you have forgotten about Risk Compensation.
>
> I have asked these people (Chapman, Perry, Clinch) time and time again
> for evidence of risk compensation with regards to wearing cycle
> helmets.
>
> They have no evidence.
>
> The best Perry was able to do was refer me some page numbers in a
> book.  He could not even produce a paragraph from those pages which
> backed  up his stance.
>
> --      
>
> "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being
> involved in an accident."
>
> That august body The CTC
>
> (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)

I feel far from bomb proof when riding a bike, with or without a
helmet, especially when being continuously overtaken by a stream of
fast moving (by bicycle standards) cars and lorries. I am certainly
not prepared to take any more risks just because I am wearing a
helmet!

Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:

> I feel far from bomb proof when riding a bike, with or without a
> helmet, especially when being continuously overtaken by a stream of
> fast moving (by bicycle standards) cars and lorries. I am certainly
> not prepared to take any more risks just because I am wearing a
> helmet!

It's not entirely unheard of for people to refuse to go out without
a helmet. So if they're going at all into what they perceive is a
risky environment then they're taking greater risks because if they
didn't wear the helmet, they wouldn't be in what they think is the
risky environment.

It's not about feeling invulnerable, it's about being there at all.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Derek C on
On 15 May, 21:09, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > I feel far from bomb proof when riding a bike, with or without a
> > helmet, especially when being continuously overtaken by a stream of
> > fast moving (by bicycle standards) cars and lorries. I am certainly
> > not prepared to take any more risks just because I am wearing a
> > helmet!
>
> It's not entirely unheard of for people to refuse to go out without
> a helmet.  So if they're going at all into what they perceive is a
> risky environment then they're taking greater risks because if they
> didn't wear the helmet, they wouldn't be in what they think is the
> risky environment.
>
> It's not about feeling invulnerable, it's about being there at all.
>
If I wanted to ride my bike somewhere and I didn't have a helmet
available, I would still go and still ride in the same manner. I don't
understand what point you are trying to make? I just think that it's
sensible to wear a helmet if you have one, as it reduces your chances
of getting a serious brain injury, should you have an accident. If you
have a vintage car that is not fitted with seat belts (or airbags, or
crumple zones), you will still drive it, but just accept the risk that
you may be more seriously injured if involved in a crash. Same
principle.

Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:

> If I wanted to ride my bike somewhere and I didn't have a helmet
> available, I would still go and still ride in the same manner.

Did I say "Derek C" specifically?

> I just think that it's
> sensible to wear a helmet if you have one, as it reduces your chances
> of getting a serious brain injury, should you have an accident.

So you do wear the one you have going down stairs, and getting out
of the bath, yes? After all, people sustain serious head injuries
relatively commonly doing both of those things if they have
accidents in the process.
If you don't, as I imagine is the case, then there is clearly some
sort of line at which an activity, though /potentially/ fatal, is
considered not worth taking special head protection measures for.
I don't see what the problem is in realising that for a great many
people cycling is an activity felt to be the same side of that
safety line as going down stairs and getting out of the bath.

> have a vintage car that is not fitted with seat belts (or airbags, or
> crumple zones), you will still drive it, but just accept the risk that
> you may be more seriously injured if involved in a crash. Same
> principle.

And you would corner just as fast, and brake just as late? And if
you think you would, you're completely sure about that?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/