So this is all about stopping helmets being made compulsory because it might deter some people from cycling?
Isn't that exactly the same as saying we should reverse seatbelt laws because it puts some people off driving? It is isn't it? Yes it is.
Because if safety in numbers applied, then more cars on the road = safer roads.
For whatever reasons there some strong correlations around the use of helmets in various countries.
Some countries have low helmet wearing rates, low cycling injury rates and high cycling rates.
Others are the reverse. They have high wearing rates, high injury rates and low rates of cycling.
In some of these helmets have been made compulsory with no detectable effect on injury rates.
In Australia wearing rates went from about a third before the helmet law to close to 100%, with no detectable effect on the rate of cyclist casualties. There was a strong effect in reducing cycling rates, which is a home goal for public health in that obese country.
It has been observed that car accident rates decrease with traffic density. This is called Smeed's Law.
As motor traffic increases the rate of incidents per car decreases, though the rate of injuries per head of population increases.