[rsanek]

>Why not wear it?

The argument that is mentioned in the article -- "increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile... because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too."

[lock-the-spock]

Is it that drivers wearing helmets take greater risks, or that drivers in more risky settings opt more often to wear helmets? Who can tell?

[krab]

Exactly. I've read the article but I don't find the argument very convincing. The helmet is light enough I don't think about it when driving. Does it really alter my driving style to be riskier?

I've cracked two helmets when I was younger. One in a forest, going downhill. Most probably, I wouldn't go there without a helmet. The other one was in a city, while distracted*. In the second case, the helmet definitely didn't have any influence on what I did. In both cases, I wore the helmet voluntarily and I was glad to have it.

The company from the article is definitely in a conflict of interests. Banning helmets, it doesn't have to provide (and check) protective gear for drivers and passengers. Also, it doesn't focus customers' attention towards potential risks.

* Putting a phone back into my bag, I accidentally hit a brake. Silly, don't ask me how I did that. Fortunately, no car was around.