This is nonsense, and sounds like the same kind of opposition to motorcycle helmets, i.e., a series of platitudes and excuses that are thinly or not-at-all supported by any actual data.
Basic protective gear has a high frequency of converting a life-changing or life-ending event into a "drat, I scratched my helmet/glasses/gear" event. When I was a teenager a guy in my town was getting known as a motocross racer. Until one Friday he was tuning his bike, went around the block to check something about the tune, slid on a patch of sand, hit his head and died. If he'd just spend 5sec to toss his helmet on, he'd have had to get another one for that race. Instead, he is no more.
Their entire argument here is that 'fewer cyclists come out with helmet laws because it is mandatory'. Aside form no data, I'd say that it is better that there are fewer cyclists but they have their helmets on. Sure, there's less of a 'safety in numbers' effect, but the effect of many more injuries in the news/scuttlebut will also reduce numbers of cyclists.
Basic protective gear has a high frequency of converting a life-changing or life-ending event into a "drat, I scratched my helmet/glasses/gear" event. When I was a teenager a guy in my town was getting known as a motocross racer. Until one Friday he was tuning his bike, went around the block to check something about the tune, slid on a patch of sand, hit his head and died. If he'd just spend 5sec to toss his helmet on, he'd have had to get another one for that race. Instead, he is no more.
Their entire argument here is that 'fewer cyclists come out with helmet laws because it is mandatory'. Aside form no data, I'd say that it is better that there are fewer cyclists but they have their helmets on. Sure, there's less of a 'safety in numbers' effect, but the effect of many more injuries in the news/scuttlebut will also reduce numbers of cyclists.