[wizofaus]

But that problem can be addressed in other ways - primarily better infrastructure (though I'd like to see better driver education too, e.g. as per the Netherlands where drivers are encouraged to open doors while parked in a manner that ensures they see any oncoming cyclists before doing so). We have MHL where I live and while I think there's a good argument for relaxing them at least for certain cases, I am grateful for having grown up in a culture where wearing a helmet is expected/ normal while riding a bike - they've certainly saved me from more serious injuries multiple times (including cases where I've hit the top of my head on branches etc. while riding!). But the fact that so few places in the world do have such legislation is telling - if a law truly is effective with limited downsides it tends to get adopted far more universally.

[stingrae]

The infrastructure doesn't get built until you have large demand from existing cyclists.

[wizofaus]

Building out better infrastructure is usually the most effective way to increase the number of people cycling (and to make it safer for those already doing so).

[jackbravo]

Politicians usually don't do anything unless they see a demand for it on their citizenship. Just hoping they will build better infrastructure is naive. And if you want to increase the number of cyclists, laws that make it harder, like helmet requirements, will of course slow the demand.

[wizofaus]

Politicians have access to the studies showing that such infrastructure when built has the desired effect, and studies showing that the number one reason people don't cycle more is that they feel unsafe riding among traffic, regardless of helmets. Governments have the job of providing infrastructure to enable cities to function, and in many cases better bicycle infrastructure is the cheapest way to achieve it.

[thrashh]

There also studies about how car on-ramps can be built, how sidewalks should be routed, how schools should be organized, etc. etc.

And money has to be split between all those things. A government has to provide for its people’s needs and if its people show no interest in cycling, some other more pressing problem is going to take priority

[stingrae]

They ignore it as long as there is a vocal contingent of people against cycling infrastructure because of cost or because it may create a slight disruption to a car.

[wizofaus]

Some do, sure. But thankfully at least where I live governments (both state and local-level) have seen the benefits of improving cycling infrastructure and are continuing to do so. A good many car drivers are quite happy to not have to share roads with bikes too! Well-built cycling infrastructure makes roads better for all users, esp. if it can reduce the number of unnecessary car trips.

[matsemann]

They do build bridges for cars even where no one is swimming across, though.

[mackrevinack]

but would you have hit your head if you weren't wearing a helmet? maybe you would have been more cautious! maybe people are slightly more careless/risk taking when they take certain safety measures?

[bluGill]

Cars in the 1950s had what amounted to spikes in the middle of the steering wheel and it didn't cause people to be more careful.