Inexplicably anecdotal evidence was ceded 'expert' status ahead of class 1 evidence, and as a consequence we surrendered our right to determine whether to encase our head in an oil-based coffee cup or not.
Notwithstanding inconclusive & contradictory data pertaining to the merits of bicycle helmets, helmet-law believers have been unnecessarily sheltered from criticism.
In fact so much so, these well-intentioned people have acquired baseless, irrational opinions which have subsequently rendered them (& us) incapable of:
(a) thinking rationally (b) popping to the shops on a bike, and to some extent (c) riding a bicycle, full stop!
Contrary to what helmet-promoters would have you believe, 'bicycle-armour' is not required when you're popping anywhere mainly because cycling:
(a) isn't dangerous (b) nor extreme
Depressingly, we've witnessed the calculated logic of bicycle helmet laws 'coral' debate into a 'cul-de-sac' of reason - and we fell for it - sigh!