I would dare imagine that reducing the amount of bicyclers has been a favourable strategy to many countries and cities for quite a few decades. Cities were never designed to accommodate bicycles in large numbers - in a common setup we have the road for cars that move on wheels and we have the road for people that zigzag on their feet. Cyclists are disliked by both cars and pedestrians. Even I dislike cyclists when I'm walking or driving. The average cyclist in my city - doesn't know it's not OK to cycle on a footpath - doesn't know it's not OK to cycle on driveway if there is a bicycle path - doesn't know there is a difference between zebra crossing (only for pedestrians) and bicycle path crossing - doesn't know right of way laws regarding bicycles and intersections (well, neither does the average car driver..) - doesn't consider what is a safe cycling speed - this list would just go on and on From this perspective, passing a law that both improves cycling safety and reduces prevalence of cycling can be seen as favourable, no? Ending up with a situation like Copenhagen needs that the laws, infrastructure and culture are favourable for cycling. IMO demanding removal of helmet laws "because Copenhagen" is like people of Tonga demanding their government to achieve a moon landing "because USA". Eh, that's a terrible analogy. I don't really care about the helmet law personally. I use a helmet if I'm planning to cycle fast or use a bicycle that I suspect might suffer a catastrophic failure while cycling. The law here requires the use of helmet, but there are no criminal penalties for breaking the said law. While we are on the topic of bicycle safety if there's one thing that's really important it's proper bicycle lights during twilight, dark, or just generally poor weather. Improve your visibility!