Risk compensation and bicycle helmets: a false conclusion and uncritical citations

Abstract

Some researchers and many anti-helmet advocates often state that because cyclists are wearing a helmet they feel safer and take more risks. This hypothesis - risk compensation – if true, would reduce, annul or even reverse the assumed benefits of helmets in reducing head injuries. Consequently, this hypothesis is often used to oppose mandatory helmet laws. In this article, we illustrate how one of the few studies that attempted to experimentally test the hypothesis in relation to bicycle helmets arrives at a false conclusion. As a result it is often cited as evidence of risk compensation. Given the lack of experimental studies in this research area, the impact of a single study in shaping the opinions of the general public and of policy makers can be significant.

Wearing a bike helmet leads to less cognitive control, revealed by lower frontal midline theta power and risk indifference

“…The finding that the helmet participants did not generally prefer the riskier option is in line with criticism (Pless, ; Radun et al, ) of the risk compensation theory or risk homeostasis theory, which postulates that safety features lead to riskier behavior (Trimpop, ). Rather, our findings suggest that the effects of helmets on risky decision making may be mediated by their impact on cognitive control levels.…”

“…These perceived benefits notwithstanding, some research has highlighted an adverse effect of helmet wearing in that people tend to take more risks when wearing a helmet than when not wearing one (for a review, see Adams & Hillman, ; Trimpop, ; Trimpop & Wilde, ). This adverse effect, termed risk compensation (Peltzman, ), has been addressed by several related theoretical frameworks including the most popular (Pless, ; Trimpop, , ) but highly controversial (Evans, ; Pless, ; Radun, Radun, Esmaeilikia, & Lajunen, ) theory, called risk homeostasis (Wilde, , ), and an alternative framework called risk allostasis (Lewis‐Evans & Rothengatter, ). Similar concerns about risk compensation have been discussed for other safety‐related tools such as seat belts (Adams, ), airbags, safety goggles, or vaccinations (for reviews, see Pless, ; Trimpop, ; Trimpop & Wilde, 1994).…”