Given the ideas suggested above, read through the following article, and summarize how the article understands risk.
This article poses risk as one-sided when it comes to the safety of helmets. The author uses satirical language and humor to his argument when he states that cycling head injuries should be blamed on vehicle drivers, not the people who don’t wear helmets. He believes that helmets alter the “responsibility” of who’s at fault for the accident to the bike riders instead of who he believes are to blame, the drivers. This shows that he considers bikers at more risk with or without helmets because the drivers are the reason for the risk in the grand scheme of riding bikes.
So, the risk-takers are the bicyclists, but, what the author clearly doesn’t consider is the risk that the bikers would be taking if they chose not to wear helmets. He supports his “anti-helmet” behavior with the statement that “the federal government has been forced to stop exaggerating the effectiveness of bicycle helmets under the Data Quality Act.”
He even blames helmets for being the reason that the biking population is so low. Because people are forced to buy helmets and wear them when they ride bikes, people don’t use bike lanes. The author argues that bikers shouldn’t be attacked for their helmet use, and instead focus our attention on “the giant machine on public roads.”
In this scenario, instead of having bikers be scrutinized for their lenient use of helmets and being considered exposed to risk, the risk is with or without a helmet, since he believes the risk are car drivers.