I don't wish to sound like I'm somehow in rydabent's camp--calling people trolls every single post is in woefully bad taste--but he does have something of a point in that the efforts in this thread by some posters mostly seem to be pointed at undermining arguments or research for helmet use, not for freedom of choice or to repeal any laws. I.e., they're proselytizing under the guise of trying to enlighten the masses. (Where have we heard that before?)

I think one should be careful about assuming the mantle of an expert who knows better than the other guy. Take, for example, the statements here about what a helmet is designed to do. I've seen quite a few pronouncements on that topic in this thread, but rarely backed by any sort of reference to helmet design specs, testing standards, or scientific research. A hunch is not a fact One could, for instance, point to the Cochrane review that says explicitly that helmets can protect "even if it [a bicycle crash] involves motor vehicles." Or you could turn around and quote a tester who says, "Cycle helmets are primarily designed for falls without any other vehicle involved." Not to say either is necessarily right, but nevertheless it's helpful to point to facts or expert opinion before trying to tell some supposedly benighted poster what's really the case