> you are way better wearing a protective helmet if you fall off your bike. Head trauma is not something to be dismissed on the basis that wearing an helmet isn't mandatory or - gasp - fashionnable.
You'd probably also be better off wearing a helmet while driving a car if you were in a collision, but that doesn't mean we do. There are comfort tradeoffs, and really I've biked in Amsterdam (which is a bit more sketch in some areas than Copenhagen by the looks of it) and definitely did not feel I need a helmet.
Helmets are for sport racers (they go really fast downhill and collisions are likely) and cyclists who have to mix with automobile traffic or deal with poor quality roads (e.g. storm drains, potholes, etc.)
You're also committing fallacious thinking by arguing for the way something ought to be by appealing to the way it is (i.e. the laws in your country).
> There are comfort tradeoffs, and really I've biked in Amsterdam (which is a bit more sketch in some areas than Copenhagen by the looks of it) and definitely did not feel I need a helmet.
Regarding comfort: from the day I decided to wear an helmet (and it had been a long time I hadn't rode) it only took me 2 trips to feel "naked" without it. Just like I feel uneasy when there are no seatbelts in a car.
> Helmets are for [...] cyclists who have to mix with automobile traffic or deal with poor quality roads (e.g. storm drains, potholes, etc.)
Which is my case in Belgium. However, I still believe that even in a safe environnment such as Amsterdam or Denmark, with or without car on the road, you'd better fall with a helmet than without one.
Sorry again for the fallacy, I just wanted to give more context to how things are here.
On a side note: I remember when helmets weren't mandatory in the "tour de France" and in "Liège Bastogne Liège". I thought it was really weird people were complaining about "the ridiculous helmets" and didn't really fight the safety arguments of pro-helmets.
I strongly feel the bicycle helmet "debate" is almost the same as the one for the car seatbelt made mandatory in the 90's (in Belgium): people were screaming they were all going to get strangulated, that the incomfort would bring more accidents, etc.
You are ignoring the side effects of helmet use.[0] Mandatory helmet use is just as bad as mandatory drug administration when helmets can have lethal side effects.
* The mean motorist passing difference being several centimetres smaller for cyclists wearing helmets - increasing the chance of a collision. [1]
* Mandatory (and increased) helmet use correlates strongly with increased rates of cyclist fatalities. [2]
* Strangulation caused by straps around neck on catching helmet. (There is a mandatory legal disclaimer about this on every helmet in the UK)
* Increased risk of head injury due to increased head diameter
* Increased risk taking by the wearer based on reduced percieved risk
* Reduction in number of cyclists and "safety in numbers" due to making cycling a percieved risky activity.
* Diffuse axonal Injury injury caused by increased friction between helmet and tarmac
I personally do wear a helmet because the road conditions in London are made hazardous by motorists.
Helmet campaigns are really just victim blaming. Motorists kill more young people than aids and malaria combined and somehow society is ok with it.[3]
There was a study that showed having pedestrians wearing cycle helmets would save 100x as many lives and drivers 10x as many - as making cyclists wear them.
Partly this is because there are a lot more pedestrians/drivers than cyclists but also because above children speed a bike helmet doesn't do much for you. If you are cycling at 20-30mph you need the same helmet as a motorcycle doing the same speed.
ps. this was also before airbags became ubiquitous. a lot of non-seatbelt wearing drivers die of head injuries in common low-speed impacts.
It's true I always wondered why "small motor bike" drivers had such an hardened and heavy helmet compared to "styro-foam carbone fiber" made bike helmet.
I read some the abstract of the studies contradicting the health benefits of a helmet and the studies contradicting those very studies. I am convinced that helmets benefits outweight naked head benefits. The rare case where someone has a neck injury directly because of the helmet seems to be extremely rare.
You'd probably also be better off wearing a helmet while driving a car if you were in a collision, but that doesn't mean we do. There are comfort tradeoffs, and really I've biked in Amsterdam (which is a bit more sketch in some areas than Copenhagen by the looks of it) and definitely did not feel I need a helmet.
Helmets are for sport racers (they go really fast downhill and collisions are likely) and cyclists who have to mix with automobile traffic or deal with poor quality roads (e.g. storm drains, potholes, etc.)
You're also committing fallacious thinking by arguing for the way something ought to be by appealing to the way it is (i.e. the laws in your country).