Why would anyone cycle to work?

bertikusmaximus wrote: »

Aren't safety features - cycling helmets, seat beats etc. - there to prevent serious injury in the event of an accident, not to prevent the accident in the first place?

As I said above, helmets are purported to reduce the number of deaths from head injuries, but your risk of getting a head injury depends on two factors:

1) The survivability of the impact
2) The probability of the impact occurring in the first place.

The arguments in favour of helmets repeatedly concentrate on the first whilst systematically ignoring the second. We've been through this pantomime 30-odd years ago with seatbelts, and learned nothing from it.

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Just the other night I rode home in the dark. Yes with lights, on the Thames footpath. I hit my head on a low branch. I was grateful I had a helmet on.

And I would have died on 9.11.85 if I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt, but that doesn't prove that seatbelts reduced the number of deaths on the road.

Wearing a helmet reduces risk as do lights and bright clothing.

Reduces what risk? As I've just said, your overall risk of getting hurt depends on the risk of having the accident in the first place not just the survivability of the impact. (Bright clothing is an acknowledgement of that, obviously.)

andrewf75 wrote: »

Because 1) I don't believe that drivers are more likely to crash into me if I'm wearing a helmet
and 2) even if they are, I think the protection it offers me in the event of any crash, not necessarily with a vehicle, overrides that

A helmet doesn't just affect drivers behaviour, it affects yours to. As I keep saying it's a matter of common experience that people behave more carefully when they see danger. Are you going to tell me that:

People don't walk more carefully on an icy pavement than a clean dry one?
Aren't more careful with a sharp knife than a blunt one?
Don't give a tiger a wider berth than a hamster?
Don't drive slower round a sharp bend than a wider one?

etc etc etc.

AFAIK there has been only one experiment anywhere in the world that has looked at the overall risk of head injuries compared between a group of helmet wearers and a control group of non-wearers, rather than just comparing survivability of the impact.

In the 1970s, the states of the USA were divided into two groups, and the compulsory motorcycle helmet legislation was revoked for one half of the population and retained for the other. Head injuries were higher in the group that retained the compulsory helmets.

It's been the same story with seatbelts, there was no reduction in road deaths at the point they were introduced, but they led to an increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed. So seatbelts merely served to transfer the risk from those who create the hazard, to those who don't.