Regarding the reduction is cycling: the share of cycling as a transport mechanism fell by almost the same amount in a number of jurisdictions with no mandatory helmet laws over the same time period[1]. People in the transport strategy field generally seem to think the cause of this change was more dual-car families.

However, I used to be strongly in favour of mandatory helmet laws. Now I tend to think they need to be more targeted and used as a blend of changes. I think riding on footpaths should be allowed (with a strict speed limit) without helmets, as well as on separated bikepaths, again with a speed limit. On roads they should be mandatory.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/qPGUfAK.png

an effective mandatory helmet law, from a national health perspective, would be to force those who drive a car to work to wear a bicycle helmet ...all day long.

The idea being that a) cyclists should fuck off, b) pedestrians deserve no space or protection and c) the burden of mitigating danger needs to be placed on those most vulnerable to it, not those introducing it in the first place (cars).

This is thinking from the 1950s. All of these things have failed dramatically.

I'm unsure if your response is to my ideas around helmet laws or something else? For context, I'm from Australia, where helmets are mandatory for all bike riders. Making them non-mandatory is a change that some think will increase cycling uptake.

Anyway, if it was to me, then

a) I'm a cyclist (over 6000km and 115,000 vertical meters this year. That's further than I drove).

b) Of course pedestrians deserve space. I'd prefer to change the laws to allow non-helmeted riding on separated bike paths only, but that would be useless as where I live most separated bike paths don't link up which means people must either ride on the road or (illegally) on the footpath to get between them. In a world where not everywhere is Copenhagen or Amsterdam I'd prefer to see children ride to school with their parents on footpaths than not ride. I'd prefer to see people who worry about helmet hair ride to work on footpaths and separated bike paths than not ride. Where I live both these things are currently illegal.

c) Yes. Riding on roads needs to be made safe. That does not preclude encouraging more diverse transport choices by making other changes too.

I find too many cycling advocates come from entrenched pro or anti-helmet positions and aren't prepared to look for compromises. That isn't helpful overall.

I would say the reduction in cycling is a pretty significant effect. I love cycling, but I am far too scared (or wise) to ever consider riding on a street shared with cars and trucks. In the end if anything goes wrong the driver will feel sad and I won't feel anything.

I've been cycling in traffic for almost 3 years in a country with no bike lanes and pretty bad motorist behavior regarding cyclists. It was scary the first month, but then you get used to it and you learn a couple of rules that reduce your chances of getting into an accident significantly [1]

Learning these rules really makes all the difference. Would you prefer to get into an accident and not get killed (thanks to a helmet), or to significantly reduce your chances of getting into an accidents altogether?

A note on gear: get all the lights (front, back, laser lane) and reflectors (for individual spokes and tires too) that you can, set them up to blink, and use a bell and a mirror

[1]: http://bicyclesafe.com/

Please keep the blinking reasonable and non-distracting. A lot of cyclists where I am have what amount to high-powered strobe lights aimed at car-driver's faces. I've also been the victim of this while riding my bike down canal paths at night. It's no fun being completely blinded while a fellow cyclist zooms past.

I'd be so annoyed by the helmet, it messes up my hair, makes my head sweaty, I have to put it somewhere or keep it with me the whole time. It would really make me bike less. Then again I hardly ever have to share the street with cars and trucks and if I do it is with a lot of other bikers. This is not at all uncommon during rush hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

It is so great that video looks completely normal to me. Dutch cities and towns are full of bikes. It's the best way of transportation. Clean and healthy. I have no car, just a bike and I always take public transport or bike. Sometimes I'll rent a car. Rain and wind are rarely an issue. I can recommend anyone to aim to live in place where biking is safe and easy. It adds daily fun to your life.

> In the end if anything goes wrong the driver will feel sad and I won't feel anything.

This is pure hyperbole. As someone who has been hit by 6 cars, most accidents are minor. Sure you will end up worse off, but only a couple have I not been able to ride away from, and that was because my wheel was damaged.

Of course, I started to wear a helmet after about the 3rd time.

It is not really hyperbole when it come to the consequence of a serious accident. Hundreds of cyclists are killed every year by cars and trucks, but I am yet to hear of even one driver killed by a cyclist - this would be a man bites dog type story.

You are far less worried about risk than me - if I had been hit 6 times by cars while on a bike I would not even be able to look at a bike without feeling ill let alone ride one.

Sure, what you say is true, but most accidents between cars and bikes are minor accidents. They do not result in death.

I have an anecdotal evidence to support the [1]: when wearing a green neon west on a motorbike, drivers stop respecting my right of way in Berlin. Probably classifying me as a novice rider (here the driving school students always wear one).

These things are mentioned in TFA. You didn't read it.

Thanks for pointing that out, I upvoted you.