My logic isn't flawed it's thought through. You seem to know the answer to what many of us would like to know. You're assuming that the helmet would absorb the impact to it's design standard. How do you know this? I can see three or four possibilities.
1) the one you hope for and i hope for. That the helmet absorbs the impact and only transmits a smaller force
2) It fails catastrophically and absorbs no force
2) It transmits all of the force to your head so your brain ping pongs around in your skull.
How do you know which would happen?
Look at the design standard of helmets, it's quite limited. Ask yourself why they don't do a test where a helmet hits a tree at 20mph, a car at 30mph, is run over by a skip lorry at 10mph. They wouldn't be dificult to simulate but perhaps the test are limited because the design is limited. It is, after all a bit of foam with a plastic cover.
Now ask yourself what the greatest risk to a cyclist is and what would be the best policy to pursue. Compulsory helmets or rider and driver education?
If you can't see the logic in any of that or the flaw in arguing for compulsion or the emotional blackmail of your arguments based on no fact or logic, then you're right. Continuing the conversation is pointless
