Why bother with egg boxes when we have helmets that have shock absorption and crumple zones built in already.
The problem I have is that anybody could actually believe the owner of that helmet in the OP would have been better off without it on. Still it takes all sorts to make the world go around, or is it still flat?
I doubt anyone would suggest that the owner of the helmet would be better off, but statements such as "it more than likely saved his life" are utterly without merit. Without precisely recreating the conditions of the crash without the helmet we cannot be sure, but it's entirely possible that without his helmet he wouldn't have hit his head at all, or would only have suffered superficial contusions.
It's also possible that he would have suffered serious concussion, and there is the small possibility that it did, as claimed, save his life.
I don't think anyone has suggested that helmets, in all situations, provide no protection at all; just that their protective effect is vastly exaggerated, and the statistics show that you are not significantly more likely to suffer a head injury with a helmet than without.
Finally, the risk of head injury as a pedestrian is broadly similar to that on a bicycle, but if you suggested wearing a helmet to walk into town, people would look at you as though you were insane. There is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that cannot equally be used in favour of pedestrian helmets. Only cyclists are singled out to justify why they choose not to wear a helmet. I think that's interesting.
I would not try and persuade people to not wear a helmet if they want to, but it's really important that it's an informed choice, with the limitations of helmets explained and understood, and the distortions and exaggerations of some on the pro-helmet side exposed.
. I was wearing a watermelon on the way to the pub and walked into a bar. That watermelon saved my life! It did I tell you!
