One of the reasons is the separation of biking lanes and motor vehicles. There are also directives (not laws) for implementation of crossings, roundabouts and soft requirements for traffic/h vs lane width etc. This makes sure the implementation is mostly universal and thus easier to work with but leaves some space for special cases (e.g. in dense cities and on older roads).
> So the number of bikers in the Netherlands seem to create a better protection for bikers than the usage of helmets. And here is the kicker: If you don't demand that people use helmets when biking, the number of bikers will rise to a level, where the number of injuries will be lower than if everybody used helmet.
I think infrastructure and distances of travel are more of a incentive than helmets, though with mopeds (low speed mopeds don't require helmets) speak in your favor.
> So the number of bikers in the Netherlands seem to create a better protection for bikers than the usage of helmets. And here is the kicker: If you don't demand that people use helmets when biking, the number of bikers will rise to a level, where the number of injuries will be lower than if everybody used helmet.
I think infrastructure and distances of travel are more of a incentive than helmets, though with mopeds (low speed mopeds don't require helmets) speak in your favor.