If you can be assed I’d read it, but I don’t think the conclusions of the article reflect what you’re saying. The article doesn’t say that helmet legislation is neutral or has negative outcomes. According to this article based on the link you posted it says:
“Goldacre and Spiegelhalter single out one recent study, led by Jessica Dennis at the University of Toronto, which held that compulsory helmet laws in various Canadian provinces had achieved only a “minimal” effect on hospital admissions for head injuries related to cycling.”
Minimal is not zero. Minimal is something.
I also don’t think it’s an easy thing to measure considering there is much more participation in high-risk cycling activity like mountain biking today than there was 30 years ago. Furthermore don’t you think it’s telling that all professional cyclists wear helmets? I’ve read into this before and it seems that, from my perspective, most if not all the research says that helmets have a positive or neutral effect. This is contrasted by the volume of discussion on the matter, a lot of which is people saying that helmets have no effect or even a negative effect on safety.
