Rather than rely on a helmet to protect my face I prefer to avoid the accident in the first place. You will notice that the link makes no mention of the acts involved prior to the accident in which the helmet was impacted. I assume that this is because the biker was doing something that they shouldn't have done, or failed to do something they should have done.
Ma Bell does not belive in accidents. Collisions are the fault of the Bell System driver doing what he shouldn't or not doing what he should. I've carried this over into my personal life. Whenever I see an accident I try to figure how it occured and whether it would have caught me:
http://www.dslretorts.com/Paladin/archives/000672.htmlhttp://www.dslretorts.com/Paladin/archives/000108.htmlYou will notice that both accidents involve a controlled intersection where at least one party
trusted the ability of the traffic signal to stop other vehicles. I don't trust others.
At each and every intersection I am looking for someone doing twice the speed limit to come flying out on an intercept course. As I tried to explain on suzuki-bikes.com this involves hard snaps of the head left-right-center in the last second or half second prior to entering the intersection. A three-pound plus full face helmet prevents this level of defensive driving. My two-pound DOT beanie causes neck pain after an hour ride on city streets. This may be why I have never seen another rider checking controlled intersections to the extent that I do.
You see the scratched helmet and say "It protected his face." I see the scratched helmet and wonder "What was he doing or not doing to cause or fail to avoid the accident?" I wish to avoid accidents so as to not need 'gear' to protect me. A helmet impairs my ability to do so. I would prefer to not wear any helmet. Unfortunately, the law says I must endure the helmet because other people fail to avoid accidents.