From Bell Sports: http://www.bellbikehelmets.com/helmet101.asp

"HOW DO HELMETS WORK?
During a crash or fall, the helmet’s liner compresses to absorb impact energy so that the brain doesn’t move around the inside of the skull with as much force. This reduces the likelihood of the most common brain injuries."

NOTE: I see nothing about shatering foam being part of the deal - do you?

You are all free to believe anything you like. No one is saying that you can't go around wild eyed and screaming that 6 ounces of foam will save you from everything short of a Catapillar tractor head-on.

The facts are plain to those who are willing to look however. A competent medical statistician, D. Robinson has analyzed the data fully and demonstrated time and again the errors in the "studies" which demonstrated some statistical revelevence in helmet analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

"Because the large increases in wearing with helmet laws have not resulted in any obvious change over and above existing trends, helmet laws and major helmet promotion campaigns are likely to prove less beneficial and less cost effective than proven road-safety measures, such as enforcement of speed limits and drink-driving laws, education of motorists and cyclists and treatment of accident black spots and known hazards for cyclists."

http://www.cyclinghealth.org.nz/index.html

"The helmet law has diverted attention from proven safety measures.
The government has concentrated on enforcing an ineffective law rather than proven safety measures such as traffic calming, road engineering, skills training and cycling facilities. Helmetless cyclists in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark are much safer then helmetted cyclists in New Zealand. Countries considering introducing mandatory helmet laws look at New Zealand as evidence of why NOT to have a helmet law."

A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up
New York Times, 29th July 2001 by Julian E Barnes

"The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread." (Note: The increase in risk per cyclist is 40 percent. The higher figure cited in the article represents a calculation error.)

Herein lies the rub - if you tell a legislator that ALL he has to do is pass a law requiring helmets in order to drive down the fatality rate he doesn't have to spend a dime on bicycles - he can simply demand that everyone wear a helmet and push the actual statistics under the rug when his laws have no real effects.

In the meantime speeders and even drivers purposely dangerously harassing bicyclists are allowed free rein. If that's your idea of safety then you can have it.

And if you want the final word here it is: Written by Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1081

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."

"In other legal cases with which I have been involved, where a cyclist has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present."

Again - I don't wish to tell people NOT to wear a helmet. I wish them to understand that wearing a helmet WILL NOT replace good judgement.

http://www.offitsface.com/biking-tricks.html

Here's articles on how to perform insane stunts like:

"The Back-Flip: Don't try this at home. This is some serious **** that should only be attempted by the most accomplished jumper or the most mentally ill hyperactive fool on the planet. Take precautions. Full face lid, shin pads, knee pads, mattress (Yes, mattress, trust me), or try it off a lip over a deep pond (Water is soft). (Difficulty rating 7/5)"

Do you suppose someone would try this without a helmet? I never saw most of the insane things I've seen until all of the "safety equipment" appeared on the scene. At the Sea Otter races each year there are some "trials" riders who set up a track that winds up into the air on a 18" wide track and then they make a jump off the 20'+ top onto a ramp. Shall we pretend that a helmet would help in case he missed the ramp?

No one can stop the loons from acting loony but the problem is that normally sane people watch them doing stuff like that and don't allow themselves to analyze what's really at stake.