I don&#x27;t remember if the following link was the site, but in any case it makes similar points (disclaimer: as far as I can tell, this seems to be a &quot;helmet skepticism&quot; advocacy site, so take it with a grain of salt):<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cyclehelmets.org&#x2F;1209.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cyclehelmets.org&#x2F;1209.html</a><p>&gt; <i>&quot;It&#x27;s not a simple matter to draw conclusions about the benefit a broken or deformed helmet might have provided in a crash. However, the fact that serious injury to unhelmeted cyclists is as rare as helmet damage is common, suggests that most of the claims of benefit from damaged helmets are likely to be exaggerated.&quot;</i><p>&gt; <i>&quot;The next time you see a broken helmet, suspend belief and do the most basic check – disregard the breakages and look to see if what&#x27;s left of the styrofoam has compressed. If it hasn&#x27;t, you can be reasonably sure that it hasn&#x27;t saved anyone&#x27;s life.&quot;</i><p>The point seems to be that anecdotes of the type &quot;my helmet worked and saved my life, see? It&#x27;s cracked&quot; are not conclusive.