"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
k.net...
b_baka wrote:

The answer would have to be that they reduced head injury but the
overall effect might be to make cyclists braver than they should be
whilst wearing a minimal helmet.

Actually, we've seen the opposite assertion here from the anti-helmet
people. They claim that the reason (or part of the reason) why the
injury and fatality rates are statistically lower for helmet wearers, is
not because of any protection the helmet offers, but because helmet
wearers are also more cautious riders.


No, only that *voluntary* helmet wearers (i.e. those who freely chose to do
so in the absense of a MHL or other intensive social pressure) tend to be
more cautious riders. The whole point about risk compensation theory is
that coercing people into using safety equipment that they otherwise
wouldn't chose to use on their own initiative is likely to cause them (at
least at the subconscious level) to take more risks than they otherwise
would have if they weren't using that safety equipment. Something similar
may be happening with voluntary helmet wearers as well, but unless the
elicited increase in risky behaviour is greater than their inborn aversion
to taking such risks in the first place, it is doubtful we would ever see
much of an effect in the overall stats for that particular segment of the
population.

For seat belt use, the only real risks appear to be transfered to
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the unbelted passengers of drivers who
otherwise wouldn't use seat belts. For bicycle and motorcycle helmet use
though, the additional risks taken by riders who otherwise wouldn't chose to
wear a helmet appear to equal or exceed the actual safety benefit to be
derived from the use of such equipment, which is why we see so little
evidence of a net safety benefit at the whole population level (other than
that associated with depressing the total number of bicyclists or
motorcyclists of course).

Riley Geary