VF> It follows, then, that the original poster (and 
 VF> apparently yourself) _must_ support use of helmets 
 VF> in cars _IF_ medical cost of skull/facial injuries 
 VF> is used as a rationale for mandatory use of helmets.
 
I'll bet he responds with the same dishwater "I wear a seatbelt" reply that 
Mr. Head-Trauma EMT did.
 
 VF> I can't explain it much simpler than that. In 
 VF> short, the arguments used by the original poster of 
 VF> that idea are - to be kind - utter bunkum.
 
I'm afraid you'll have to grunt and stomp the ground before they'll 
understand you.  :-)
 
 VF> One will also note that the original poster has yet to respond with 
 VF> valid statistics relevent to the case: they have 
 VF> cited the cost of skull injuries, but not stated 
 VF> what fraction of these (assuredly miniscule) are 
 VF> from cyclists alone; they have not cited the actual 
 
Propagandists don't respond with facts, just more propaganda.  I believe this 
would all stop if someone would just invent a bicycle that consumed a little 
gasoline while you pedaled, and then require everyone to ride those.  :-)
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------