Sorry for being unclear. By saying “better off” I did intend to take into account the cost of wearing a helmet. Currently, this cost would be high because others would think less of the wearer. When I was young, no one wore a bicycle helmet, now not forcing your kid to wear one would, in my neighborhood at least, be considered bad parenting so it’s more costly for a parent to not make his kid wear a bike helmet than to force him to use one.
I don’t think that the (dis)approval of neighbours is the largest cost component, but there is a bigger issue.
In doing the cost-benefit analysis that involves uncertainty, a major factor is risk aversion. When you say “we would be better off” you imply that a particular level of risk aversion—similar to yours, in this case—would be optimal in some way. Why do you think so?
For example, my risk aversion seems to be noticeably lower than yours. On the basis of which criteria do you think that your level of risk aversion is more suitable as a social norm than mine?
I’m guessing that the utility of the average American would be higher if the social norm was (a) you are weird if you don’t wear a helmet most of the time when awake, then what we have today which is (b) you are weird if you do wear a helmet most of the time when awake.
Some helmets are more acceptable than others. I’ve had people say things like “You know you are inside now” to me when I take the elevator to my office and still have my bike helmet on. I do take it off when I get to my office. In contrast, hard hats are generally seen as reasonable to wear for certain people even when they are not on a construction site. The presumption is that someone wearing a hard hat does work in construction or something similar and just didn’t want to take the hat off, I suppose.
Sorry for being unclear. By saying “better off” I did intend to take into account the cost of wearing a helmet. Currently, this cost would be high because others would think less of the wearer. When I was young, no one wore a bicycle helmet, now not forcing your kid to wear one would, in my neighborhood at least, be considered bad parenting so it’s more costly for a parent to not make his kid wear a bike helmet than to force him to use one.
I don’t think that the (dis)approval of neighbours is the largest cost component, but there is a bigger issue.
In doing the cost-benefit analysis that involves uncertainty, a major factor is risk aversion. When you say “we would be better off” you imply that a particular level of risk aversion—similar to yours, in this case—would be optimal in some way. Why do you think so?
For example, my risk aversion seems to be noticeably lower than yours. On the basis of which criteria do you think that your level of risk aversion is more suitable as a social norm than mine?
I’m guessing that the utility of the average American would be higher if the social norm was (a) you are weird if you don’t wear a helmet most of the time when awake, then what we have today which is (b) you are weird if you do wear a helmet most of the time when awake.
Some helmets are more acceptable than others. I’ve had people say things like “You know you are inside now” to me when I take the elevator to my office and still have my bike helmet on. I do take it off when I get to my office. In contrast, hard hats are generally seen as reasonable to wear for certain people even when they are not on a construction site. The presumption is that someone wearing a hard hat does work in construction or something similar and just didn’t want to take the hat off, I suppose.