Of course, had you hit your head, you probably wouldn't be posting this. The anthropic principle as applied to safety... or why anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms.
And where is your research that leads you to that conclusion? I love it when people say, "the helmet save my life" just because it cracked when they crashed. I usually respond with "how do you know that? Have you had a substantially similar crash without a helmet in which you did not survive?"
Now I have no doubt that helmets absorb energy in an impact, I just don't think they are as effective at reducing injury as the general public believes them to be. The crash test researchers fully understand, but they are getting paid to reduce risk & liablilty to and absolute minimum. So even a quantum reduction in risk is a positive outcome.
IMO, honing your cycling skills and increasing your situaltional awareness while on the road do more to reduce the risk of injury than simply strapping a beer cooler on your head
So let's play the anecdotal evidence game again: I've been cycling "seriously" for about 28 years. I still have more miles helmetless than helmeted. Everytime I've crashed (sample size: 5) I've been wearing a helmet. Everyone I've known personally (sample size: 3) who has been killed while cycling was wearing a helmet. Damned dangerous things, those helmets! :)