Hi folks. I'm pleasantly surprised that most of this has been so pleasant so far
+1
If you're banging your head, then you've already basically lost. Maybe a crash helmet may mitigate crash damage but often they seem to be adopted instead of minimising the sources of danger, which is not an acceptable approach to risk management in other fields. For example, in the Avoid/Control/Accept/Transfer model, crash helmets seem like accepting the risk of crashing and trying to protect part of the body. Wouldn't similar logic mean you should wear moderate body armour to protect the rest of the body?
If the possibility of banging my head exists at all, I would rather have a helmet on it. There has to be some sort of balance otherwise you just wouldn't ride on a road with other road users. I could no doubt do more on the road to minimise the sources of danger as you say, but how far should I take it? Cycle at 10mph max? Slow down every time I see a car? If I choose to ride on the road, I can not 100% control or pre-empt what every other road user around me will do at all times although I do try. I use lighting during the day, I check for traffic around me continually (not just before manoeuvres) including the use of a mirror (early warning, but I then shoulder check to show approaching vehicles that I am aware they are there). I know a bit about defensive riding from 25 years of riding motorbikes without 1 incident (I tell a lie - I rode into someone's garden fence on a friend's moped when I was 16, but I never crashed any of my bikes) i.e. most incidents will occur right in front of you between 10 and 2 on a clock face.
The risk acceptance argument could equally apply to wearing a seat belt in a car or driving a car with air-bags. There can be a large difference in risk modified behaviour where people are said to take more risks because they have a helmet on. I have 2 queries regarding this. 1. Is this more than conjecture in trying to explain statistics that don't appear to make sense? 2. What comes first, the decision to do something risky leading to one donning a helmet or does the donning of a helmet lead otherwise cautious people to do something risky? Whatever the case, it may be true in some cases, but it's impossible to say what percentage of helmet wearers this applies to unless you have very detailed data based on interviews. I'm not sure it applies to me as much as putting a car seatbelt on doesn't change how I drive because I always wear a seatbelt. However, if a teenager fits Recaro seats with a 4 point harness to his hot hatch, I'm not thinking to myself "What a sensible and safety conscious young man". lol
Haven't many of us snagged our crash helmets on low-hanging branches and low arches? I know I did.
Not me, but I see your point. Obviously, we are better at judging heights that we can fit through with a bare head rather than with a crash helmet on. Or a top hat for that matter, unless you wear a top hat most of the time. The art of getting into a horse drawn carriage with a top hat on is a lost art. N.B. I'm trying to be funny, not sarcastic
)
approach to overheating!
