FWIW, wrt helmets, I ride in mixed traffic high speed situations, so I wear one.  That's my choice.  I don't feel obligated to tell people they should wear them.  But I do explain why I do, because it's not about me, it's about the drivers.  I have no problems with people not wearing helmets in city centers, especially in places where they have 30/50kph programs.

Regarding various personal and public pressures and feelings about helmets, I wish you would just keep recommendations to yourself, but anyway you strongly imply that people who do not wear helmets do not feel that their heads are special, or that they do not seem smart (Right? I am just separating the yolks from the whites in your text.) But you say - I suppose in an official process - that you would just not mention it, which I like. So my recommendation - since you asked - is to just be clear that it is a personal and private choice unless of course it is required by some (stupid) state or city regulation. There a million things you do personally which will also be left out of any contract you may be involved in.

Finally, on infrastructure, the "critical mass" happens because of infrastructure. While there are lots of people around cycling on the same street at the same time, it does feel safer, but only infrastructure (e.g. separation or stuff to make vehicles go slow and also smartly designed intersections) keeps people feeling safe at all times. Also, regarding only doing so much, the Avenues in Manhattan were all two-way until near the middle or end of the first half of the 20th century -- and I think all the crosstown streets were two-way as well. So the grid has been subverted and no one is doing anything about this, and implementation of e.g. surface collective public transport such as dedicated buses and lanes on the East Side will only make it more difficult to make them all two-way again.

I do wear a helmet, and frankly I think people should.  I didn't for a long time, until I got hit by a car and while my bike was totaled (although it doesn't take much to do that--just bend the fork) my head was ok.  Since my brain is pretty special, I wear a helmet.  The issue is that wearing a helmet isn't about you as much as it is about the cars.  If it helps, even potentially, it seems smart to wear one.  But it's about the relative speed of traffic, in the core of many center cities, traffic isn't that fast, and bicycle sharing bicyclists aren't likely to ride on faster streets (it's a bike kind of oriented to streets of 20-30mph).  I ride in various places, where there can be higher speed traffic.

So it seems contradictory for me to not recommend a helmet in the context of bike sharing.  But, because the trips are short and you develop a critical mass of riders, I think you get the Denmark-Netherlands effect of greater safety and helmets aren't necessary.

WRT riding the wrong way, whatever, you can only do so much.  Note that because of the number of deaths with the Velib system initially, most of the RFPs in North America have questions about risk management and crisis communications and contingency plans.

My concern is for the most part cycle activists in NYC seem to resent any critical opinions, even constructive ones. This might be more of their public face but still the public should not be misled. Bike share in NYC will start in Manhattan, just like everything else does. (I am reminded of a photo Clarence shared today on Facebook of him sitting on a broken down or even dangerous bench on a shopping street in Queens). Will anyone criticize this? When all the new bike share users start riding against the traffic, will everyone blame them or mention the inherently bad design of the one-way avenues in Manhattan? Will TA say anything about helmets in user contracts since they push them in a patronizing way in the Biking Rules project? Would Janette Sadik-Khan actually recommend more public constructive criticism from her allies?

Hmm... Clarence, wish you had made that clear. 

Helmet shots can only be so random with Capitalbikeshare in D.C., as the user contract limits the liability of the operator (Alta Bike Share) if an injury is caused by lack of a wearing a helmet. Helmets are not required for cycling in D.C. for people who old enough to use Capitalbikeshare. 

Do people who use the subway etc. have to sign something saying that they will, e.g., wear proper shoes? 

The thing is that Capitalbikeshare is designed to function as public transport, plus it also gets public money. Hopefully when this stuff is being created for the NYC bike share contract that lawyery-helmet cr-p will not be included, and shame on Alta and D.C. authorities for letting it be part of the system in D.C. (Other systems in the U.S. such as B-Cycle in Denver seem to have no similar provisos.)

Not so many individuals with helmets, but lots are wearing helmets in groups. Clarence, are those fully-helmeted groups going by just random groups using the system or are they part of some activity which is the reason you visited at this time?