I know I shouldn't do this but here goes...

This post is actually too stupid to answer to.
By overspimplifying the argument of the other side you just make yourself seem simple.
Firstly helmets don't work against safety. The marketing of bicycling of as a inherently dangerous activity works against safety. This can be achieved by a few different ways. One is ranting the whole "wear your damn helmet, I just had a massive accident (due to my own incompetence on the bike) and almost died. My helmet got scratches so my head would have grated in half against the pavement without it!". Second is the state forcing helmets on every rider so then it's the state saying "this is too dangerous, you should use protective equipment". Third way of course is state marketing of helmets with fear campaigns (happened in britain for exapmple) with pictures of broken skulls and people in vegetative state.

This all leads of course leads to the average person assuming that cycling is something they don't want to do as it's dangerous. It's pretty logical really, tell people something is dangerous and eventually only the reckless will do it. Bicycling is special in this case since it is a mode of transport and as such essential. However there is a multitude of other possibilities which are "safer" or more "convenient" like using public transport or your own car. The reality though is that driving a car is not safer (in europe at least) nor is it more convenient as it costs an arm an a leg (at least in europe). Public transport is pretty nifty if you have it. It doesn't do much for health though so there's that.
Of course in a car you need to use a seatbelt. But then again it has been shown time and time again that a seatbelt is an actual life saver. A bicycle helmet is not. You did point out a study of helmet use with kids in your other post. There is a few problems with that however. First, with a child we have the relatively larger head compared to rest of the body. Due to this the head is more suspectible for injuries as a child does not have the motor skills or strenght to avoid them as well as an adult. Secondly for a helmet to work it requires an actual head strike. Most crashes do not contain head strikes as the human is relative good at protecting said head. In contrast a seatbelt works in EVERY crash situation. Whether it is enough to save a life comes down to various factors but it does help nonetheless.
Second, no one ever believes they are going to crash as no one ever thinks driving is unsafe since you are sitting in a safe armored shell (while it actually is relatively unsafe) and third, you don't need to mess up your hair with it, you don't have to lug it around, you dont' need to carry the weight on your head. And fourth, the "convenience" of driving a car goes past everything just stated.

On your second point about construction.
We all know construction yards are a dangerous working environment. Comparing that to something as safe as cycling is a bit dishonest maybe? Because in several European countries cycling can be seen as one of the safest activities one can do. Also I doubt that construction workers are going to stop coming to work if they need to use a hardhat. But as pointed out in several studies cyclists will stop cycling is a mandatory helmet law comes into the picture. That then reduces the "safety in numbers" aspect and thus leads to reduced safety.

If you actually have been in the safety industry for 30 years you should be able to realize safety is a combination of several factors and not just about the equipment. Then again maybe you are in the safety equipment area and can't see past that.

To go a bit further. No one here I believe has ever said helmets are useless. The actual usefulness is under debate since there is a strong belief that an inch of foam is not going to do any miracles. However when considering the actual safety of cycling most of the people who criticise the helmet fanaticism around here believe helmets in general are not very essential for cycling safety.