Your first point is a strange one. Are you saying that cycling is not dangerous enough to warrant wearing a helmet? If so, then the other points are moot, and you could have simplified your argument to just "there's no need to wear a helmet".
If on the other hand, you believe that cycling is dangerous enough to wear a helmet, then you're effectively saying that people shouldn't wear them in order to 'lure' other potential cyclists into cycling. That's just ludicrous!
So if they can help reduce injury, shouldn’t they be mandatory, just like motorbike helmets? Australia tried it in the early 90s and the result was a 15 to 20 per cent drop in the number of hospital admissions for head injuries. That would have been great, but it also reduced the number of cyclists by around 35 per cent.
----
A recent study in the British Medical Journal showed that cycling has a positive health impact around 77 times larger than the potential for serious injury; essentially, there’s a small chance that you’ll come a cropper, but a very large chance that you’ll reduce your likelihood of suffering mental illness, heart disease and obesity. That means the laws were hugely counterproductive
actually, it has been shown in the Netherlands that wearing the helmet is yes safer, but laws requiring helmets discourages some people from riding out of a variety of reasons. In aggregate, the GP is stating that looking at the cycling system in light of greater participation is a more effective/better solution than requiring helmets.
If on the other hand, you believe that cycling is dangerous enough to wear a helmet, then you're effectively saying that people shouldn't wear them in order to 'lure' other potential cyclists into cycling. That's just ludicrous!