Nice post crackle, I too think the jury is largely out. My beef is the emphasis and "necessity" so many cyclists put on helmets, when their direct effect is unnoticeable across a large population, from a safety point of view. I'm distinctly unhappy with their indirect effects, and this is where helmets cause real harm to all cyclists, to a far greater extent than any possible safety gain, even that attributed by the most laughable of the pro-helmet studies. This is in both direct health losses due to lower activity, and the reduction in numbers of cyclists affecting road safety.
I know anecdotally of one person who gained an injury thanks to her helmet. Ravenbait, with serious neck injury, whom some of you will remember. Like you, I think there may be accidents where helmets have worked, but given the large pop. data, that then implies that there must also have been cases where they've caused or worsened injury. That seems quite likely given facts such as how much larger a helmet makes your head and that wearing a helmet seems to make cyclists 7 times more likely to hit their head in the first place. On the other hand, it's possible that an alternative scenario is the case - that helmets don't do much either to save or to harm.
Tynan, you are risk compensating, you've demonstrated that is fact by saying you don't want to cycle without a helmet. I'm sorry you don't like that, and feel the need to argue the point, it's like having an opinion that the earth is flat.
