I'm unconvinced when someone compares the statistics and mortality rates of falling out of bed or falling down stairs to that of cycling. This is just my opinion, but the comparison makes no sense and has no statistical relevance (any statisticians out there?). The only relevant comparison would be mortality rates in these situations (falling down stairs/out of bed) between those who wear helmets and those who don't (and yes, that's ridiculous). Even that would be meaningless without knowing the age and relative health of the victims. Furthermore, you would need a statistically relevant population (n number) to make any data meaningful. That "x" number of people have died falling out of bed means absolutely nothing, especially relative to the mortality rate in cycling. That someone would make that argument is amusing.

I also agree that any statistics about whether it's safer to ride while wearing a helmet vs. not, would likely be misleading. The population would have to be large enough to outweigh anomolies and it is my hope that there aren't enough people landing on their heads, helmet or not, to produce a statistically viable sample.

My example/argument showed a specific result of a cycling injury of someone who wasn't wearing a helmet, and by their own admission wishes that they had. Is it statistically relevant? no... I didn't make that argument. Is it relevant to cycling? My opinion is yes. I did also note in the original post that she admitted that her behavior was risky, but even riding presumably safely doesn't guarantee that you won't land on your head if you had an equipment failure.

That this makes you so angry, has given me more amusement than you can know.