mattsurf wrote:
How many accidents happen when people take risks? it seems to me that most bike accidents happen when people lose concentration.
I think a hell of a lot of accidents happen when people take risks.
Drafting very close and tipping a wheel
Braking very late for corners and misjudging one or encountering poor surface conditions that leave you sliding out
Descending very fast which makes the above much more serious
Weaving between other traffic and making contact
I'm sure there's any number of other examples!
mattsurf wrote:
...However, I guess there are some situations where people would be more cautious when not wearing a helmet, for example downhill mountain bike riding. When I ride through the centre of a big city, the biggest risk takers, jumping lights, weaving in and out of traffic, mounting pavements tend to be people not wearing helmets. My annecdotal experience is that people who cycle a lot, are more likely to wear a helmet and are more likely to obey traffic regulations...
The fact that some safety devices tend to inspire confidence and influence people to take more risks does not mean that the riskiest people use most safety devices. Your logic is faulty here, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say?
mattsurf wrote:
...When it comes to cars passing and giving more space to people without helmets, where is the research to back this up? The only thing I can think of that may make this claim true is that people not wearing helmets often ride more erratically and therefore drivers give them more space
I have read reports of studies on this but I'll have to go look for them another time, sorry. Nevertheless, do you actually find that suggestion surprising? It's fundamental human behaviour that anything which identifies someone as one of "us", or different, or stronger, or weaker, changes our behaviour towards them. Whether it's accent, skin colour, attire, hairstyle, body language, almost anything....
So, yes, a rider moving erratically will change driver behaviour but so will an infinite number of other factors that affect the perception of vulnerability, likeability, humanity, etc...
I reckon it's likely the following connections are typical:
Lycra = one of those cyclist types = annoyance/aggression = less consideration
Lycra = serious cyclist = unlikely to fall off in front of me = less attention/caution
Helmet = less vulnerable = less anxiety about doing harm = less attention/caution
Casual street clothes = more like me = more identification with potential risks = more caution
Casual street clothes = maybe less experienced = more risk of incident = more caution
Erratic movement = less experienced/less able/obvious issue = more risk of incident = more caution
Child = less experienced/less able/more vulnerable = more risk of incident and worse consequences = more caution
mattsurf wrote:
...It is a fact that it is safer to ride with a helmet than without one. It may be debatable how much safer it is.
Are you sure?
I act on the basis that it is, and for the type of riding I do I think this is more likely true. However, I'm not aware of any objective evidence that makes this a FACT. I don't think it currently exists. Feel free to correct me with supporting evidence or at least some sort of argument.