On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:31:10 +0000, GB wrote:

Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%?

Even the authors of that study don't make the claim any more (they
admitted they cocked up the maths), though they still think helmets
make a significant benefit.

However, if helmets reduced risk by some high proportion, why hasn't
cycling become much safer now so many cyclists wear them?

It is safer to be a cyclist now than it was (say) 30 years ago, but
only in the same ratio compared to pedestrians as it was 30 years ago.
Basically, cars are safer now - brakes are better, they do less damage
when they hit you at 30mph, fewer of the drivers are intoxicated, and
congestion and enforcement have reduced built-up-area average traffic
speeds. All these things benefit both pedestrians and cyclists, and
both modes are safer now. But the pedestrians are not wearing helmets
and the cyclists routinely are, so if helmets made a measurable
difference, the improvement over the last 30 years for cyclists should
be much greater than it is for pedestrians, and it simply isn't.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|