DT> one.  I don't like the government telling me what to do 
 DT> any more than the next guy, but your arguments do not 
 DT> hold water.
IF, as someone has done, one makes an argument of having to wear bicycle 
helmets due to the cost of medical care for head injuries, (thus positing 
helmet use as a means of lowering medical costs) then it is _utterly_ 
illogical _NOT_ to also suggest wearing helmets for all vehicle users and 
passengers, given the volume of skull/facial injuries vehicle users produce.
It follows, then, that the original poster (and apparently yourself) _must_ 
support use of helmets in cars _IF_ medical cost of skull/facial injuries is 
used as a rationale for mandatory use of helmets.
I can't explain it much simpler than that. In short, the arguments used by 
the original poster of that idea are - to be kind - utter bunkum.
One will also note that the original poster has yet to respond with valid 
statistics relevent to the case: they have cited the cost of skull injuries, 
but not stated what fraction of these (assuredly miniscule) are from cyclists 
alone; they have not cited the actual number of skull injuries (versus the 
much more common facial injuries) suffered by cyclists - either indexed to 
helmet use or otherwise. That's because to do either would blow an obvious 
hole in an already flawed argument.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------