F'the insanity idea...
I am sitting here having a few brews...
and a brain storm happens,
OK maybe just a brain fart....
Anyways, the reason this thread is soooo long, and filled with acrimony is, that there is at least 3 different criteria being discussed here, at the same time...
1; The chance of your head hitting the pavement, bouncing off and retaining some sort of injury requiring a hospital visit on a normal ride per 100,000... 10% (made up number)
2; The chance of your head hitting the pavement, causing some sort of injury requiring a hospital visit on a normal ride... 50% of the 10% ( made up number)
3; The chance of the helmet saving you from some sort of "major injury" once said head hits the pavement on a normal ride... 10% of the 50%( made up number)
1; 10,000 people actually hit their head a year.(made up number out of 100,000)
2; 5,000 people actually visit the E-R with an injury.
3, 500 people actually have some kind major or even a debilitating injury, (or die).
Thus, the kind of thinking the non-helmeteers have of... Oh, it's only 0.5% chance of me needing a helmet... And there is a greater % chance of injuries doing other things so I don't need a helmet... That is the kind of thinking the allows people to take chances like not wearing a helmet... BUT 500 people still could have used a helmet to reduce the injuries they got.... And you could be one of the ones that could have used the helmet to reduce the injuries...JMO