With no offense intended, I suggest grouping sentences together in paragraphs (rather than starting a new paragraph for every sentence) to increase understandability. It's very hard to follow your train of thought at times when each sentence is a standalone unit.
Of course, I continue to disagree with you, as does the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety in Queensland:
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/41798/1/Monograph_5.pdf"Current bicycle helmet wearing rates are halving the number of head injuries experienced by Queensland cyclists. This is consistent with published evidence that mandatory bicycle helmet wearing legislation has prevented injuries and deaths from head injuries.
It is reasonably clear that it discouraged people from cycling twenty years ago when it was first introduced. Having been in place for that length of time in Queensland and throughout most of Australia, there is little evidence that it continues to discourage cycling. There is little evidence that there is a large body of people who would take up cycling if the legislation was changed."
I chose a study from AU, but there are numerous similar studies all over the world that show that a) though there may be an initial reduction in cycling with helmet laws, it is temporary and not permanent, and b) that the wearing of a helmet reduces the risk of head trauma in bike crashes.
That said, this whole thread is going in circles, and clearly nobody is going to have their mind changed, so I'll respond no further-- but don't mistake a chorus of agreement for a lack of dissent. It's just not worth the personal attacks that seem to fill this thread. I'll pose a question, though-- if disagreement and civil discussion aren't acceptable, then what's the point of posting at all, if the only acceptable response is agreement?