Without completely taking the thread off the rails, I read that article when it came out and there is some validity to what is argued. The unfortunate reality, though, is that it assumes a critical mass of bike usage that we don’t have here. Basically, in the biggest bike cities in the world, helmet usages is, by percentage, lower. And the reason stems from the fact that bikes are an accepted, mainstream way to get around. This is due to superior infrastructure, protected bike lanes, bike paths and an understanding of cycling behavior by the automobile drivers. Think Copenhagen, Amsterdam, etc. Basically, it’s safer to ride on the street in a downtown without a helmet because nobody is going to hit you with a 2-ton hunk of steel.
I always wear a helmet and I have for 30 years. Long before it was required, long before it was cool. I am a big proponent of helmets. However, for bike shares, they don’t really make sense because the target audience of bike share program doesn’t have a bike helmet at the ready when they need/want to rent a bike for an hour. Requiring a helmet would stifle uptake on a bike share program to the extent that it would never be economically feasible.
Sorry for the threadjack. Please carry on.