> People telling you to not wear a helmet because it somehow reduces safety through some convoluted spaghetti argument, must be off their rockers, when they clearly save lives at impacts.

No, they simply have different ethical frameworks/moral philosophies (consequentialist vs deontologist).

I’d mostly agree with you in that I find it unethical to not promote bike helmets at all, even if this were to somehow increase aggregate safety, especially if that increase is delayed and hard to measure.

But I do see the point against making them mandatory if that makes people take their car instead of a bike.

It’s not like not wearing a bike helmet is a dangerous, addictive substance that people are somehow defenselessly exposed to and that they need protection from, and it’s ultimately their own decision if they value their hairdo more than their brain.

> Not mandatory and at your own risk IMO

In the basis we seem to agree. Note that I am not trying to discourage helmet wearing (nor for governments to do it), just arguing against making it mandatory or even officially advised (for healthy adults) to wear them. Actual cycling safety is in numbers, more than in individually taken measures. This is all discussed in way more depth on reddit btw [0].

> but as a simple thought exercise on your argument

I realize could have written the sentence you respond to better, I should have written "and [mandatory helmet wearing] reduces perceived safety", also I said "should" in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, but I should've said that the NL ones ARE against making helmets mandatory for exactly the reasons I specify (and that my opinion is that other rights' organizations SHOULD be against it). Quoted directly from tbe website of the, quite well-regarded and not off their rocker, Fietsersbond [1] (under the header "Veilig gevoel?", translated by kagi):

    The Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) isn't against wearing a bike helmet. If you feel confident, you cycle more safely. It can be wise to wear a helmet in high-risk situations, for example, for seniors on e-bikes. Unfortunately, it has been proven multiple times that forcing people to wear a helmet actually backfires. People start cycling less.
    A helmet mandate makes cycling feel more like a dangerous activity—something you should be afraid of. Getting around by bike also becomes more complicated. After all, what do you do with that helmet when you're not wearing it? And what happens if you forget the helmet or if it gets stolen? These are all factors—whether justified or not—that make choosing a bike less convenient.

So yes, given that you got into an accident, it is very obviously better if you had worn a helmet (and knee, elbow and wrist pads). However, we don't want only to reduce mortality rates on accidents, we actually want to reduce the amount of accidents wholesale. The above point (and the point in my previous post) is that given mandatory or officially encouraged helmet wearing, you are more likely to get into an accident in the first place, further reducing the number of people willing to cycle, and thus safety for all those who still are willing.

I wanted to react to your car/seatbelt point, but I realize now you are the same person arguing about what constitutes starting points in the sibling thread. I don't mean to spread FUD and I also disagree that this is indeed FUD. I'm sorry that Austria is not as nice a place for cyclists as you would like it to be. I hope with this oil crisis you will find a way to foment some change re the emancipation of cyclists in your locality or even country.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/ut5fcx/why_is_thi...

[1] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/helmplicht/