This is a classic argumentative strategy. Seize the high ground, claim that there's no real disagreement on the issue, and all those arguing a different view are trolls creating confusion where there shouldn't be any.

The fact is that there is plenty of room for disagreement on most aspects of the TOTAL debate. I, for one, have no disagreement with the notion that helmets save lives and mitigate what may otherwise be severe TBIs. But, those benefits are limited to the band between where there would be an head injury in the first place, and not severe enough to be fatal with or without a helmet. There's also room for reasonable debate on the likelihood of a crash involving a head strike, where some believe it highly likely over a few decades of riding, and others seeing it as extremely unlikely.

So, not all of us who feel helmets aren't warranted are idiots or trolls.

Actually, I have a totally different objection to the helmet issue. As a long term observer of the bike scene, I feel that the over emphasis on helmets as the primary line of defense has become a distraction from more important safety considerations, namely learning to ride smart. Riders are led to believe that riding without a helmet is dangerous, and with is safe, but that's a radical departure from reality. The best way to avoid a TBI or other injury while cycling is to avoid crashing in the first place.

I often get the "where's your helmet" from riders who are running stop signs or red lights, riding in close order formations on open busy roads, or riding recklessly in other ways. I especially find an irony when people tell me about the multiple times helmets have saved their lives. IMO - if you're multiple "lightning strike" events you're doing something wrong and would be wise to shift some emphasis from the helmet to it's contents.

However, feel free to call me a troll, I really don't mind.