Many potential questions for Skeptics.SE are interesting because they relate to the evidence base behind government policy. I've just had one such question closed almost instantly on the grounds that Skeptics.SE shouldn't be dealing with policy questions. But the actual question was about the evidence, which is surely relevant to a skeptical analysis.
I agree that there are many policy questions that are inappropriate here. For example questions that can only be resolved by a choice of values (eg whether government should further restrict the freedoms of smokers: the issue is whether you believe that governments should force people to behave in healthy ways when only the individual suffers harm). However, other questions of policy (eg the one that triggered this question: should cycle helmets be compulsory?) can be entirely addressed with evidence (no debate about your underlying philosophy of government is required to address the harms and benefits of cycle helmets: that is a statistical or experimental question).
Moreover, the evidence base that relates to policy is surely fertile ground for skeptical analysis even when other factors obscure the bigger debate.
So my meta question is this: should we automatically close any question when it uses the word "policy" or should adopt a gentler standard that polices whether the detailed question or its answers are requesting or delivering evidence?
I'd vote for gentler policing as the site is likely to be far more useful if it becomes a place where people search for the evidence related to broader debates taking place elsewhere.