But it does offer harm. Advocating for helmet use discourages cycling, in two main ways.

1) it is an extra piece of equipment that one must purchase and must have with them and so people can't just jump on a bike and ride without investment and preparation.

2) it makes cycling seem dangerous. much more dangerous than the statistics show it actually is (about as dangerous as walking). this discourages cycling because many people aren't interested in doing "dangerous" things. particularly, they aren't interested in allowing their children to do dangerous things and so there has been a massive drop off in the number of kids who ride bikes since the mandatory helmet laws went into effect. this is a whole generation who will grow up without having cycling as a normal daily transportation method in their lives. haven't you ever noticed that the places where cycling is normal daily transportation they don't wear helmets?

The combination of 1 and 2 keep cycling from being as simple and normal of a method of transportation as, say, walking. Anything that decreases cycling usage has a net negative effect on the health of that population, while also increasing risk of injury to the few cyclist who remain because they are so rare out there that automobile drivers aren't used to being on the lookout for them.


That is the whole issue here. Helmet advocates don't just need to show that the helmet can provide some benefit in the event of an actual crash. They need to factor in how likely having such a crash is in the first place and see if providing a benefit in those rare instances can make up for the negatives caused to the population as a whole by advocating or mandating helmet usage for everyone.