Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

"David Damerell" wrote in message
...
Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
Or was nonsense. You're convinced you personally are different; so is
pretty much everyone who risk compensates. The odds are overwhelmingly
that you are simply wrong; just as the odds are overwhelmingly that any
given helmet wearing convinced it saved their life is wrong.
I've put forward my case, its up to you to PROVE me wrong if you think
what
I've written is incorrect.

Er, actually, it's up to you to prove your own assertion; you're the one
claiming you are a very unique and special snowflake and different from
everyone else who feels just the same way you do.


I dont find your tone constructive. It's one thing to feel angry as a result
of something someone has done but that doesn't justify namecalling from
mature people, provocative wordplay or misquoting. I believe although we all
have alot in common, everyone is unique to an extent, dont you? I replied to
the claim made by yourself on 15/05 "that every individual is absolutely
sure they don't do it" with regards to risk compensation. There have since
been other posters that have mentioned not "every" individual will risk
compensate in a given situation. You yourself have posted "the vast majority
of those who deny it do, in fact, risk compensate" yet you seem to be
unwilling to accept the possibility that I fit into the small minority. I
can say with complete confidence that I know me better than you, a stranger,
do. As no-one has claimed to hold appropriate qualifications or specialist
training then I will assume we are on an equal footing in that regard and
therefore my self knowledge is the overiding factior. Do you have relevant
qualifications and wish to make a public diagnosis without ever having met
me?

If someone tells me their helmet saved their life, I can say with
complete confidence that the odds are overwhelmingly that they are
mistaken. It is up to them to prove that their accident was somehow
unique. This case is no different.

I could make that helmet statement too, also with complete confidence... but
it means nothing and only serves to try and provoke. This isn't a situation
like a cycling incident which can be deconstructed to ascertain what effect
wearing a helmet played. Unless you're in certain military organisations
where it may be considered desirable (or at least common) by some to adopt a
guilty until proven innocent sort of style based on average statistics (or
dodgy dossiers), I believe it ends up causing more problems rather than
solving them. In court cases, in many situations, there is a need for the
Jury to reach a unanimous verdict (rather than a majority verdict) it seems
value is given to the possibility that 11 out of 12 may be wrong and only 1
is right.

Would you hold this view if you were responsible for determining whether a
prisoner received the death sentence, or a war was started? I wouldn't but
then I'm very careful about not making accusations without the facts (not
likelihoods) to support me.

Paul

Paul Murphy wrote:

You yourself have posted "the vast majority
of those who deny it do, in fact, risk compensate" yet you seem to be
unwilling to accept the possibility that I fit into the small minority. I
can say with complete confidence that I know me better than you, a stranger,
do. As no-one has claimed to hold appropriate qualifications or specialist
training then I will assume we are on an equal footing in that regard and
therefore my self knowledge is the overiding factior. Do you have relevant
qualifications and wish to make a public diagnosis without ever having met
me?


Lets put it this way. The probability that you are one of the very few
who don't risk compensate is very low. The probability that your self
assessment is valid is also low, based on studies of people's ability to
self assess (see for example thread ^ where 74% of drivers assessed
themselves as above the median) So its not impossible that you are one
of the rare few but its very unlikely irrespective of your own self
assessment.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

In uk.rec.cycling Mike Sales wrote:

Indeed, risk homeostasis theory only accounts for our behaviour when
external circumstances change (and we are aware of this ) and we are free to
respond. Incidentally, it works both ways. If we see oil on the road we slow
down. After it is cleaned up we don't.
Given we are so often told that helmets are absolutely necessary for cycling
safety, it is little wonder that many riders overestimate the amount of
protection they offer. Risk homeostasis is not necessarily an accurate
adjustment to a new level of risk, though experience ( our own and others )
will refine our estimate.

Exactly. If you overestimate a risk you will overcompensate. If you
underestimate a risk you will undercompensate. So if you think helmets
are safer than they really are, your compensation will increase your
risk of injury. Therefore one of the dangerous risk factors where
helmets are concerned is the propaganda in support of their use.

--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Mike Sales wrote:

Indeed, risk homeostasis theory only accounts for our behaviour when
external circumstances change (and we are aware of this ) and we are free to
respond. Incidentally, it works both ways. If we see oil on the road we slow
down. After it is cleaned up we don't.
Given we are so often told that helmets are absolutely necessary for cycling
safety, it is little wonder that many riders overestimate the amount of
protection they offer. Risk homeostasis is not necessarily an accurate
adjustment to a new level of risk, though experience ( our own and others )
will refine our estimate.

Exactly. If you overestimate a risk you will overcompensate. If you
underestimate a risk you will undercompensate. So if you think helmets
are safer than they really are, your compensation will increase your
risk of injury. Therefore one of the dangerous risk factors where
helmets are concerned is the propaganda in support of their use.



Are you saying, then, that the UK anti-helmet nutjobs are helping to
*lower* the risk factors involved in helmet use by trying to convince
people that they are ineffective (i.e., helmet users will overestimate
the risk and overcompensate.)?

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
ups.com...

By the way, my helmet has been one-hundred percent effective against
asteroids. -- Jay Beattie.

Mine is good for keeping the elephants away.[1]

Dave
[1] When I wear the helmet, I never see any elephants. Proof positive. vbg

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message . net,
Espressopithecus (Java Man) ') wrote:

Rule 2: If it doesn't affect [my perception of risk], I won't
compensate for a safety measure.

Presumably if you really don't think it affects your risk then there
would be no reason to wear it except when required.

So Rule #2 does not apply except to those individuals who only wear a
helmet when required to for organized rides or due to a MHL.

It applies to anyone who, like me, believes there are situations where
the protection provided by wearing a helmet is no better than that
provided by riding bareheaded.

Then why are you wearing it? As a hair ornament? To protect you from
alien mind-control beams?

Cause the cops are less likely to complain about me riding on the car
road when I'm wearing cyclist kit, and the most recognizable part of
cyclist kit (instead of person on a bike clothes) is the helmet.

Paul Murphy wrote:
There have since been other posters
that have mentioned not "every" individual will risk compensate in a
given situation. You yourself have posted "the vast majority of those
who deny it do, in fact, risk compensate" yet you seem to be
unwilling to accept the possibility that I fit into the small
minority.

To put it another way, as risk compensation* is a subconscious behaviour,
what do you do on a conscious level to make sure that you're not risk
compensating?

For example, I wrote a week or two ago about how I found that since a
failure in an ABS sensor a month ago, I'd been noticing myself leave larger
gaps in front of myself when driving the 40 miles each way up the M6 that I
do 3 times a week (sigh).

That, to me, sounds as if I was risk compensating when I had working ABS.
The interesting fact is that I was not aware of making the decision to go
closer/faster** when I had the ability to jam on the brake and swerve at the
same time, I merely noticed I was making the decision to go slowly when I
did not have that ability.

Generally, one of my priorities*** in life is to make sure that I'm
scrupulously honest with myself and I always know my real motives for doing
what I'm doing, so I do make an effort to figure out whether my behaviour
makes sense.

I notice I do risk compensate, and if there's no benefit to me in doing so,
I try to stop myself from risk compensating. Otherwise, I take the benefits
of doing the thing I want to do in a more risky way, but still try to keep
safer than I would be without the safety equipment/procedures.

Sorry, it's a long post. If you could answer the question in the first
paragraph, I'd be very interested to hear your strategies to avoid it. The
rest is just me talking about myself to flesh it out.
--
Ambrose
*it's actually slightly ambiguous term. The term 'risk homeostasis' can be
used to describe when all the benefits of a safety measure are taken up by
risk compensation, so I'm using risk compensation to mean when a significant
proportion of the perceived safety benefits are used up in risk
compensation.
**the specific situation I notice myself holding back from is generally
being in the middle lane passing a slightly slower car and being passed by a
slightly faster one, i.e. having a long period of exposure to a potential
SMIDSY lane change
***well, I guess it's more of an ethic than a priority

"Marian" wrote in message
oups.com...


Cause the cops are less likely to complain about me riding on the car
road

What is your definition of a 'car road'? In Britain only motorways (and a
very few other bits of road) are not available to cyclists. Tell plod to
read the Highway Code.

Assert you rights or they will be taken away.

in message , Tony W
') wrote:

"Marian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cause the cops are less likely to complain about me riding on the car
road

What is your definition of a 'car road'? In Britain only motorways
(and a very few other bits of road) are not available to cyclists.
Tell plod to read the Highway Code.

To be precise: a cyclist on a bicycle has a right in law to use any road
with a very few specific exceptions (notably motorways). A motorist in a
motor vehicle does not have any right to use any road, ever, but is
permitted to do so under licence so long as (s)he abides by the terms of
that licence.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

Dans le message de ,
Chris Malcolm a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
In uk.rec.cycling Mike Sales wrote:

Indeed, risk homeostasis theory only accounts for our behaviour when
external circumstances change (and we are aware of this ) and we are
free to respond. Incidentally, it works both ways. If we see oil on
the road we slow down. After it is cleaned up we don't.
Given we are so often told that helmets are absolutely necessary for
cycling safety, it is little wonder that many riders overestimate
the amount of protection they offer. Risk homeostasis is not
necessarily an accurate adjustment to a new level of risk, though
experience ( our own and others ) will refine our estimate.

Exactly. If you overestimate a risk you will overcompensate. If you
underestimate a risk you will undercompensate. So if you think helmets
are safer than they really are, your compensation will increase your
risk of injury. Therefore one of the dangerous risk factors where
helmets are concerned is the propaganda in support of their use.

So, if you are convinced (right or wrong) that helmets are the devil's
doing, and you ride without one, are you undercompensating also ?
--
not that any of this matters any longer ...

Sandy