There is some intuitive sense to this. Is why short bus rides don't require seatbelts. (Though, I confess I can't remember the rules for cross state busses. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0318.htm has some info on school busses, but I'm not entirely clear that is applicable here. Except in as much as it is clear that comparing helmet laws to seatbelt ones is... dubious.)
Again, if you have legit complaints, make them. If you feel safer wearing safety gear at a personal level, you are correct. If you think that safety gear at a society level is a no brainer, I challenge you on that assertion.
Fair. I mostly read the dismissal as only based on the headline, which I feel is still unfair. But, I can take responsibility on that uncharitable read. Apologies.
Following a few links from the main article easily gets to https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2017/09/01/missing-the-fores..., which has https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/13/wapo-is-wrong-head-in..., and ultimately points to there being something with just getting more folks on bikes. Especially for short trips that are likely the norm for bike share systems.
There is some intuitive sense to this. Is why short bus rides don't require seatbelts. (Though, I confess I can't remember the rules for cross state busses. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0318.htm has some info on school busses, but I'm not entirely clear that is applicable here. Except in as much as it is clear that comparing helmet laws to seatbelt ones is... dubious.)
Again, if you have legit complaints, make them. If you feel safer wearing safety gear at a personal level, you are correct. If you think that safety gear at a society level is a no brainer, I challenge you on that assertion.