The Dutch fatbike saga is hilarious. In the olden day, all the cool kids had a moped (bromfiets). But then in 1975 the government mandated helmets.
But helmets are terrible for your hair (apparently, I haven't had either for decades). So everyone switched to a speed-limited variant (snorfiets) which doesn't require a helmet. And then of course they'd bypass the speed limiter, you'd get fines for doing that, etc.
Enter the fatbike: same speed limit, equally trivial to bypass, no helmet required. The same type of annoying youth using it, which sets the stage. But these things are also wildly popular with young kids with a predictable increase in accidents.
(adjusted for inflation a fatbike costs about the same as a moped, but economic growth outpaced inflation, and modern parents are much richer - and have fewer kids to spoil)
How to solve that? You could make helmets mandatory on all e-bikes, which would reduce their social status, but that's like revoking the Second Amendment.
No, the solution is simple, just ban bicycles with tires wider than 7cm! Yes, some cities did this ... so now you can buy fatbikes with 7cm tires, known as skinny-bikes.
The article here predicts we'll get mandatory helmets for all e-bikes, until age 18 (queue lawsuits over how cops decide how old you look, and/or whether it's proportional to stop all cyclists and ask for ID during random checks).
I guess they'll gradually raise that age as the new generation gets used to helmets. I think the aversion to helmets isn't about protecting ones hair, but rather a dislike of cars, which were gaining popularity back in the seventies, resulting in increased accidents, especially with kids. People correctly demanded physically separate bike lanes, rather than being forced to wear a helmet. But we have those now, so the new generation doesn't have to continue this fight.

WNL
Fatbike-ondernemer omzeilt verbod met dunnere banden: 'Zodra die er zijn, mogen ze hier fietsen', erkent wethouder