Originally Posted by Bulette

Who is saying this?

If we go back to the opening post, even the one study linked in article doesn't state what the author suggests. (In Slate: "Twenty-eight states repealed their helmet laws, with one prominent advocate claiming that motorcycle helmets actually increased the likelihood of neck injuries.") In reality, the conclusion of the cited article begins: "Over the past 30 years, helmet law advocates have gathered a mountain of evidence to support their claims that helmet laws reduce motorcycle accident fatalities and severe injuries. Thanks to the rounds of helmet law repeals, advocates have been able to conclusively prove the converse as well: helmet law repeals increase fatalities and the severity of injuries" (Jones and Bayer 2007).

It seems we have a bunch of advocates pointing out that helmets work, while twisting the anti-helmet arguments a bit. (Anti-helmet groups concede personal injury rates, but still push for liberty, which is a separate argument.) Most people who cite risk homeostasis do so correctly, as a real (and measurable) behavioral adjustment in response to changes in risk or safety, but rarely enough to offset the actual changes in risk exposure.