Originally Posted by
invalid.user
Not that I disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't think you can make that argument because the same can be said about seatbelts and cars, for example. To make this claim, you have to have an inherently prejudiced view of helmets, or at least of their burden on cyclists. Some see helmets as something as natural as tying a shoe lace, and those people would never agree with you that helmets discourage people from using their bicycles. However, others see helmets as a major inconvenience, and a large burden on cyclists, and those people would definitely agree with your premise that generalized helmet enforcement will discourage some people from cycling.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to present a counter argument. As I said in my last post, I have the same opinion as you when it comes to helmets; they should be worn in certain scenarios, but should not be enforced for every type of bicycle riding. I personally don't wear a helmet when I'm going on dedicated paved cycling infrastructure or MUP.
Well, it is exactly that argument that the Dutch cycling federation makes for not promoting helmet wear for regular daily cycling. The claim is even that the health benefits for the entire population from more cycling, outweigh the negative elements of not wearing helmets.
The perceived deterrent is not so much the inconvenience of a helmet, but the message that cycling is dangerous. Especially if you want to promote helmet usage without it being mandatory, you only have the safety argument. Seatbelts are so efficient at preventing damage in almost any car crash that they are mandatory and people can be compelled to wear them just to prevent fines.