Regarding comfort: from the day I decided to wear an helmet (and it had been a long time I hadn't rode) it only took me 2 trips to feel "naked" without it. Just like I feel uneasy when there are no seatbelts in a car.

> Helmets are for [...] cyclists who have to mix with automobile traffic or deal with poor quality roads (e.g. storm drains, potholes, etc.)

Which is my case in Belgium. However, I still believe that even in a safe environnment such as Amsterdam or Denmark, with or without car on the road, you'd better fall with a helmet than without one.

Sorry again for the fallacy, I just wanted to give more context to how things are here.

On a side note: I remember when helmets weren't mandatory in the "tour de France" and in "Liège Bastogne Liège". I thought it was really weird people were complaining about "the ridiculous helmets" and didn't really fight the safety arguments of pro-helmets.

I strongly feel the bicycle helmet "debate" is almost the same as the one for the car seatbelt made mandatory in the 90's (in Belgium): people were screaming they were all going to get strangulated, that the incomfort would bring more accidents, etc.

Partly this is because there are a lot more pedestrians/drivers than cyclists but also because above children speed a bike helmet doesn't do much for you. If you are cycling at 20-30mph you need the same helmet as a motorcycle doing the same speed.

ps. this was also before airbags became ubiquitous. a lot of non-seatbelt wearing drivers die of head injuries in common low-speed impacts.

From the wikipedia page regarding the "australian bicycle helmet law" I read this: For example, one recent French study analyzing over 13,000 cyclist casualties during a ten-year period "confirms the protective effect [of helmets] for head and facial injuries," and finds that "the reduction of risk is greater for serious head injuries. The study is inconclusive about the risk for neck injuries."[45] The most widely quoted case-control study, by Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson, reported an 85% reduction in the risk of head injury by using a helmet.[46] It has been suggested that these studies may be fundamentally flawed.[47][48][49][50] [51] [52] Thompson and Thompson have rejected these criticisms.[53] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Case-control_stu...

Are you suggesting something along:

1. Cyclists wearing helmets are prone to take risks because they are wearing helmets ? ;

2. people don't want to ride bikes because they don't want to wear a helmet because they don't like the look of it and as a result of that they might do less exercise activities than if they could have ride helmet free ?

edit: I found this: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

There are some frightening points being made (and contradictory to my position) but I have some tingling doubts about some. Have to read it with more attention later.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I stated that fact to give more context and because I wanted to link the mandatory helmet to the fact that bikers not wearing one in my country are more likely to be bad bikers than those wearing it. Moreover, I wanted to also state (I should have make 2 different bullet points) that we (in my country) must wear helmets because it's the law (not only because I, in my personnal opinion, think it's better - I often answer to people who asks me why I wear a stupid helmet that "it's just the law").

Wearing a helmet is a pretty strong hint but it's not a proof.