Of course, but I thought that was pretty obvious...
The more you delve in to the literature the more cloudy the "obvious" becomes.
Just like you are capable of concluding that you were originally worried riding without a helmet, I can also tell what the effects are on me without the conclusions being fallacious!
We can tell there is an effect but telling exactly what that effect is comes into the realm of the "non-trivial".
I am not pretending to know what other people think or what their attitude is.
And if you don't know how it affects those around you then you don't know if you're safer... For example, there is a mounting pile of evidence that people overtake helmeted cyclists with less space than unhelmeted ones, so that takes you outside the realm of your own control and being clearly safer by wearing the hat. If you are part of a trend towards helmet wearing that is increasing the speeds on the pistes then you are, to some degree, part of a problem. The whole thing is very hard to call effectiveness of simple measures, but people like to put on a hard hat and think "of course I'm safer now, that was simple". Risk just isn't that simple though.
Just out of interest, why do you read all this health and safety stuff? Is it part of your work or does it just interest you?
I used to cycle everywhere in a helmet, for all of the "common sense" reasons people usually have. And back then I'd have told you you'd be daft not to as well. During a Usenet discussion someone said I was wrong, it wasn't that simple and I should look at the original research. I assumed he was a Loon, but being a clinical scientist with a medical research library down the corridor I had the skills and resources to prove that he was, and took the opportunity. And the more I read the more it seemed that he was right and I was wrong.
And the more I keep reading the more I find we're stumbling blindly into a public health own-goal by promoting and forcing measures of little practical effect except reducing gainful exercise, all because of "common sense" working on simplistic and slightly paranoid misapprehensions. I don't think that's a Good Thing so in my small way I'm trying to stop it happening.
Pete.