Don't forget to add that those laws may have had an effect in reducing cycling injuries, at least according to this study, "The impact of bicycle helmet legislation on cycling fatalities in Australia" : ": In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors."

Also the studies that found a negative impact on cycling participation studies were countered by other studies. Such as this one. "Anti-helmet arguments: lies, damned lies and flawed statistics" -which concluded that you can't conclude anything about Australia's laws.


I have no read any of the studies well enough to comment. Just pointing out that it's super easy for either side of the argument to point out a few studies and then claim it's correct "because science."