Nobody is telling you that, you made it up for the purposes of a trololol post on /n/, but you'll get lots of (You)s so here's your first. Most of this boils down to the misuse of statistics to push a shoddy argument, so I'll just speak in terms of perception and values:
-In some cities and some countries helmet wearing is not normalized because riding a bicycle is perceived as being relatively safe. Let's call this "non helmet places"
-In places where riding is perceived as unsafe, helmets are either normalized, or non-helmet-wearing is stigmatized. Lets call this "helmet places"
-In "non helmet places", some people still wear helmets, particularly those who ride "race bikes", the definition of which is also somewhat a matter of perception and culture. There are many bikes that fall into a grey zone where "helmet places" are less inclined to call it a "race bike" because all bikes are seen firstly as "bikes" and the exact categorization is seen as a subject that only obsessive cyclists split hairs over
-In "helmet places" there is often a culture war over helmet laws. "Obsessive cyclists" (even those who wear helmets) may be strongly opposed to such laws on various grounds. These grounds usually boil down to something to the effect that the laws distract from more sincere, serious safety measures that are politically infeasible, compared to simply mandating what cyclists should wear on their heads which is something that can easily be shoved through a legislative body
-There is an anti-cyclist view of this, which is that people who oppose helmet laws don't understand safety, or don't care about it. There really are some cyclists who don't care about safety, of course, but far fewer than what anti-cyclists think
Also, next time check the catalog before making a thread:
>>1960158 
