Bummer, but at the same time it's hard to argue with a measure designed to save lives. If seatbelts wouldn't have been compulsory for decades I think people would have a hard time accepting them as mandatory.
Helmets are a lot less convenient than seatbelts. They have to be stored somewhere, locked to your bike hopefully, and people will still screw with them just because they can. Then you have to put it on your head and somehow get it to be comfortable and not mess up your hair before you arrive at work. None of this is really bad for American biking culture: biking is a serious affair with its own work out clothes with a probable shower if they are going to work anyways. It isn't like Amsterdam where you just kick off in your suit and arrive at work.
> it's hard to argue with a measure designed to save lives.
No, it's easy to argue because cars inarguably cause way more deaths than bikes. So when people switch to cars from bikes, it's indirectly killing more people. Any measure that prevents bike use leads to more deaths.
The article I read (this was a few years ago) wondered if the reduction in cycling (due to helmet laws created on safety grounds) actually ended up with the opposite effect. Fewer people outside cycling, more people in cars creating smog and getting fat. They didn't provide any data, just posed the question. I can certainly envision circumstances where that would be true, but you'd have to already have a very safe cycling culture (Amsterdam), I'd think.
I don't really care for government safety rules like these in general. And I totally get that biking is relatively safe in places were it's deeply ingrained to the culture like Amsterdam. I still cringe at least a little bit though with pics like this. (from Amsterdam)