ymfb wrote:I do not agree with your assessment, risk assessments are based on risk, likelihood and outcome, cycling is by any measure more dangerous than walking.
Prove it?
Therefore to mitigate the likely injury some people wear safety equipment such as gloves and helmets, they (a) thought about it (b) did something.
But have they done something useful? Or is it the old fallacy "something must be done! Helmet use is something! Therefore helmets must be used!"
In your example, it was a collision, which helmet makers specifically warn their products are not designed or tested for. Any benefit they derived from the helmet should probably be written off as luck, because it could almost as easily ended up in a negative effect.
If you bang your head it hurts, if the impact is great enough you will damage something that maybe irreparable, if you break a limb it hurts, but it’s very likely repaired with a simple procedure and a few weeks discomfort.
Yeah, but no amount of plastic foam on your head will protect your other vital organs and damage to those could be irreparable and that's a far more common cause of cyclist deaths. It's far better to try to reduce collisions than try to mitigate only one of the effects with a product whose makers say is not designed to be effective in that scenario!
I’m happy to accept RoSPAs advice.
RoSPA's mission would still be completed if cycling "accidents" were reduced by stopping everyone cycling and we all die from inactivity-related diseases instead. They do not have our best interests at their core.
