Cycle helmets are promoted as a way of reducing injury if someone is knocked off their bike, but new research suggests they may be increasing the risk of accidents in the first place.

Psychologists have discovered that people wearing cycle helmets tend to take more risks than they would if they did not have one protecting their head.

This suggests much of the protective edge provided by a helmet may be lost by making cyclists more likely to have an accident in the first place.

via www.dailymail.co.uk

Behavioral response to avoidance mechanisms is a orm of Moral Hazard. Moral Hazard typically occurs when someone takes more risk because someone else absorbs the consequences of the risk. For example, car insurance leads to riskier driving because the insurer bears the risk for the driver. In this case, the helmet is absorbing the risk (self-insurance?) causing the bike riders to take additional risks.

Posted in
  1. Ingmar Schumacher Avatar

    It’s not (really) moral hazard since noone else takes the burden of this additional risk. It is simply optimal risk taking. Same thing has been shown with NY taxi drivers: those that were fitted with new brakes and tyres drove faster.
    Helmets reduce the probability of head injuries, which is one of the main reasons for bicycle fatalities. So even if you take more risks i.e. are likely to have more accidents, a helmet should reduce your probability of dying overall. Thus, withdrawing helmet regulations seems strange.
    Mind you, since you do not hurt anyone else whether you wear a helmet or not, it is questionable whether this should be regulated in the first place. Just like smoking, drinking, dangerous sports, etc…

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading