The burden of proof has to be on the side that encourages helmet use- they are arguing that people should go out and buy helmets and wear them and replace them after crashes. So far I have only seen fallacious arguments. (False Burden of Proof, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Common Practice, Anecdotal Evidence) I am trying to gather logical arguments from either side of the debate so that I can make a good decision myself.

Helmets are a huge industry, think about it- potentially ~85,000,000 consumers, all the benefits of fashion changes, built in obsolescence (every crash) and an easy campaign of fear advertising. That industry has to convince me of a need that they can fill.

Trevor
Living is not safe- you will die from it.