[apendleton]

I think the argument is "I as a cyclist will be safer if there are more cyclists total because drivers will become more accustomed to them, and if I wear a helmet I foster the perception amongst other prospective cyclists that cycling is unsafe and they will thus be less likely to ride, so I'm better off trying to improve my safety via safety-in-numbers by projecting the image of cycling as a non-dangerous activity than I am in trying improving my safety via a helmet of questionable protective value." You can agree with that or not, but I don't think it's founded on a fundamental logical fallacy.