Wearing a cycle helmet leads to more risk-taking, study finds

The only time in my life I have suffered brain injury, I wasn't anywhere near a bike, or indeed a helmet.  FACT.

Can we just stop all the nonsense please?

I wear a helmet because at my average speed of around 15 - 17 miles per hour if i do take a tumble then by the time i hit the deck my speed will have reduced and the helmet will probably stop me from splitting my head open or taking the skin off and it does not induce me to take risks.

I also wear a stab proof vest whilst at work but this does not mean i will willingly take on a knife weilding person.

The assumption that by wearing a helmet makes you take risks seems, in my opinion, incorrect.

What cbrndc said ^

I wear a helmet; but I don't wear a helmet because it will protect me in the event of being hit by a car (been there, done that); no, I wear a helmet to protect my family from the f'greedy insurance companies who argue not to pay the full amount of damages because the "cyclist contributed to their own death by not wearing a helmet" even though the cause of death was not head injury.

Isn’t the double irony that, out on the road, taking some more of what might be considered greater risks – riding faster, more assertively, taking lanes – actually keeps you safer?

While this study has its weaknesses, it does support the large body of evidence demonstrating risk compensation, which is the effect of maintaining the same perceived level of risk when given "safety" equipment.

One of the greatest problems with cycle helmets is that people think that they are safe if they wear one, so they take considerably more risks, which overwhelm the very low level of protection offered by the helmet.  It is remarkable that the manufacturers of cycle helmets make no claims for their protective effect, beyond meeting very low standards of energy absorbtion, because they would contravene advertising standards.  Unfortunately, these strictures do not apply to other groups promoting helmets, who make all sorts of nonsense claims e.g. BHIT claiming that helmets prevented 85% of deaths when they knew that it wasn't true.  These groups deliberately exagerate the risks of cycling and the protection offered by cycle helmets.

My own research showed clearly that most cyclists who wore helmets greatly overestimated the risks of cycling and the protection of helmets.

So the subjects were sitting in front of a computer playing a game, a situation where there is no risk of injury or death.  How does this equate in any way with risk taking behaviour on the roads where there is a REAL risk of injury or death?  I'm not saying the original assumption of the effect is incorrect, I just don't think the two situations compare.

'Risk Compensation' behaviour has been recognised for a long time, and is certainly playing a big part why mandatory helmet laws are not improving injury rates over a large population.

However this test does seem particularly week. The idea that blowing up a balloon in a safe environment will equate to how they behave while out on the road is a bit of a stretch...

The most obvious place where feeling protected leads to greater risk-taking is, of course, in modern cars with airbags, crumple zones and massive protective cages around the driver - SUVs and 4x4's especially...

So on the one hand this study suggests cyclists' need not wear helmets to keep them safe but on the other it shows, once again, that the greatest danger on the roads from excessive risk-taking comes from people in cars - and therefore that's where the focus of policy and policing and the judiciary should be.

Given the minimal protection offered by helmets,  I think this research demonstrates the futility of their use.

So, we should campaign for a ban on helmets!

Of course!
It was proven, many years ago, that most people drive "to a perceived level of danger, or risk". (They argued for spikes in the middle of steering wheels!) Why should cyclists be any different?

I think it stands to reason that if you wear something that makes you safer you are more likely to take risks.

I know amoung my group of friends we do push as far as we can, take for instance downhilling we wouldnt push nearly as far as we do if we wear an armidillo. When we kayak generally the helmets only come out for when we run waterfalls and higher grade rapids and the same thing for climbing. In the context of road cycling I dont wear a helmet if im popping to the shops or a quick 5 mile blast on local roads I know well, on longer rides and unknown roads then I will wear a helmet.

Someone could run a similar test with elbow and knee pads with skateboarders, bladers and bmxers and come to the same conclusion. I think its all about percieved risk if you feel 100% safe your going to push that extra 5/10% but then someone who is younger is likely to push harder than someone older.