> Sure, but that's not the argument. Agreed. I just thought the metaphor was not helpful. > The hypothesis is that requiring helmets may make individual biker

> Sure, but that's not the argument. Agreed. I just thought the metaphor was not helpful. > The hypothesis is that requiring helmets may make individual bikers safer in isolation ...though there's a (somewhat) credible argument that even this isn't true. There are arguments against this too. Some argue automobiles see someone without a helmet as more "at risk" and therefore are more mindful of them, thereby net increasing their safety. Others argue that mandates tend to discourage innovation in safety equipment design, effectively encouraging the deployment of limited safety equipment at the expense of more effective alternatives. > I'd imagine this is especially true given that the helmet mostly only helps prevent the more dramatic injuries to the head. Getting hit by a car is still likely to seriously injure you in plenty of places the helmet doesn't help with. Which also brings up the ol' "is it better to be more likely to live, but also more likely to have broken arms and legs?" question.