Removing MHLs is likely to have a negative effect on motorist behavior

The debate about mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) continues to rage among cyclists. I'm pro-MHL, but the anti-MHL brigade point to the fact MHLs have a negative impact on cycling participation numbers, and thus limits the development of cycling infrastructure, which makes cycling safer. The benefits of a helmet in an accident aren't as clearcut as commonly thought. There are indeed studies which show helmets have a major positive effect on outcomes, others that show effect the effect is negligible.

My own personal take in this is that accidents vary. Wildly. Your speed, your point of impact, any secondary impacts, your weight, your body position, whether you were hit by a car or not, the surface you land on, your attire, speed of medical attention - all of these things (plus any more variables) vary accident to accident. And equally the value of a helmet will also fluctuate massively accident to accident.

I'm also concerned that by pushing hard for removal of MHLs, those cyclists are basically pushing cycling safety to the backburner as an issue. The most simple logic suggests helmets help in accidents (ie. if you fall on head, you are better to protect head) and there are also plenty of studies that have produced that same finding (not to mention plenty of cyclists who support MHLs). So being unwilling to don a helmet is tantamount to saying your safety isn't a concern. If we aren't going to take such a basic and simple step to contribute to our safety, why should we ask drivers make an effort? Or why should governments spend millions on improving infrastructure to address cyclist safety when cyclists can just spend $50?