[shoegumfoot]

Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The results of this study are completely unsurprising to anyone who has read any other study of helmet laws in his/her life.

At some point you just have to accept the evidence.

[enraged_camel]

It's not about accepting the evidence. It's about making sure we interpret it correctly.

The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it?

Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.)

Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.)

Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than seat belts, and yet most people aren't arguing against seat belt laws.)

Essentially, I'm not against accepting the validity of the evidence from these studies. I'm simply against the mentality of "mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, therefore we must not have mandatory helmet laws." That conclusion is too simplistic. The topic requires further study.

[jessaustin]

Helmets are quite inconvenient. One's head gets sweaty, one's hair gets mussed, one can't hear anything for the wind noise, and seeing a helmet gives autocage drivers the psychological permission to leave about eight inches when passing. Those who chose to cycle without a helmet have their reasons, just like most other human beings who do as they choose.

[pitay]

Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.)

I wouldn't assume that. As far as I can remember, this is one of the main reasons cited for the reduction in cycling. Small things can change a persons behaviour significantly.

[baddox]

They're uncomfortable and inconvenient to keep with you once you're at your destination.

There is also potentially (depending on which studies you give credence) the danger of risk compensation causing helmeted cyclists to cycle more dangerously and automobile drivers to pass more closely to helmeted cyclists.

[jewbacca]

Obviously not scientific, but if you need some totally informal causative bro-science to allow you to swallow these empirical results:

Even if the benefits are "obvious", the large majority of people aren't self-improvement-focused supermen with significant reserves of willpower at their disposal. Even the smallest increase in the necessary "activation energy" (comfort, expense, convenience; whatever) necessary for a task is going to put a large chunk of the distribution on the "fuck it, I'll just drive" side of things.

This is why "engagement" and "user experience" are multibillion dollar industries. Compare abstinence-only education, condom usage, and (kinda, if you squint a bit) drug prohibition.

[glomph]

It may well be that it makes cycling seem more dangerous.