There are strong arguments for either case, but I think it comes down to this: Helmet laws make intuitive sense in situations/jurisdictions where cyclists and c

There are strong arguments for either case, but I think it comes down to this: Helmet laws make intuitive sense in situations/jurisdictions where cyclists and cars share the road directly -- i.e., places without dedicated infrastructure to separate the two. Cyclists riding on roads with cars (even with painted bike lanes, but especially without them) are presumably at much greater risk of experiencing a fatal conflict, although statistics about this are less available than one would hope. Cyclists on dedicated cycle paths are at scarcely greater risk than pedestrians, who would probably object to being made to wear a helmet. Given the above, I would support a compromise law that mandated helmet use on public (car) roads, but not in residential areas or dedicated bike paths.