Keep in mind that evidence of some benefit isn't the same as claiming a benefit of "85% lives saved" (or whatever the large number often quoted is).

Anyway, you are providing links without looking at them.

1) The first link you posted before (and it's weak as I said earlier).

2) In the second link, the only comment about helmets appears to just say "Wear a standards approved and properly fitted bicycle helmet." It's merely echoing the standard recommendation.

3) This bases it's recommendation on just one reference regarding helmet benefits. "Attewell, R.G., Glase, K. & McFadden, M. (2001). Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis. In: Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 33, nr. 3, p. 345-352." You'd have to go back and look at that study (and any criticisms there might be of it)."

4) The fourth link echos. yet again, that overly-positive result: "Yet, research shows that helmets can reduce the risk of these deaths and injuries by as much as 85 percent."

5) This link is about helmet benefits (it's not a "recommendation" publication, which is a good thing).

6) The first link is odd. It's just a list of recommendations. The second uses one reference (Choc

7) It's possible that helmet are beneficial overall in children and don't really have any overall benefit in adults. The profiles of bicycle accidents appears to be different in children compared to adults (there's not a lot of disagreement about that).

8) This one is interesting.

11) Appears to be just a recommendation.

======

It looks most of these all rely on the same few publications the various Cochrane surveys (2001 and 2005) and Thompson, et al meta analyses (1999 and 2008). (I'm not sure about the dates.) It appears that we have lots of recommendations and not a lot of studies.