@daycoder @juliette this is evidence, perhaps relevant in the Danish/Euro context. https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/potential-impact-mandatory-helmet-when-biking

@daycoder @juliette Low speed impacts, translated to the skull, will kill you quite effectively. (and a bicycle, on any ordinary day, can quite easily enable a high speed impact). Yes, pedestrians are not required to wear helmets. The human race has been standing on two legs a lot longer than we've been riding two wheeled devices. We can stand quite comfortably on two feet. Less reliably on two wheels. I don't have a problem with opposing mandatory helmet laws, just with poorly supported arguments against them.

@juliette may I suggest you actually read the references cited in that (clearly partisan) blog post. It's not 'data', it's an exercise in cherry-picking, with very little to support your argument. To be clear, I don't care whether cycle helmets are mandatory or not. I ride with a helmet because I am required to do so, but so much of the opposing view is heart-felt, common sense - and wrong! Do better.

@juliette except that this is not a key anything, much less a serious argument against such laws. Bike share programs supply a whole bike - you really think it's beyond those programs to supply an appropriate helmet with each bike? Australia has been doing just that for decades for bike and scooter share and hire. Tourists and locals alike don't have to carry a helmet. Hygiene? Carry a small pack of antiseptic wipes or wear the helmet over a cap or soft-brimmed hat. Clearly you have no objection to protecting your health by wearing a mask. A helmet is a similar precaution. If you don't want mandatory helmet laws, that's an entirely valid view, but at least formulate a sensible argument against them, not vibes and feelpinions.