Originally Posted by
350htrr
I don't want a mandatory helmet law, was just trying to point out that over all, for people trying to decide whether to wear a helmet or not, that 1% not including instances where the helmet helped seemed wrong... Deciding to not to wear a helmet at 1% is a totally different than deciding to not wear a helmet at 5%... It is for me anyways...
I understand and I think we're agreeing - I just don't want anyone mis-using my calculation to think that a helmet would be only a 0.13% help for them in a year. Even in the Netherlands, the guys hitting it hard on racing bikes wear helmets.
I DO want people to think about the actual risk from the perspective of the whole cycling population, if they're arguing or proposing or even advocating for something that impacts the whole group. 0.13% - that's .0013 - is a valid number I think whenever we think of a mandatory law, or requiring helmets on paved trails or government installations, or bicycle safety groups talking about how important helmets are. They need to acknowledge the actual risk levels.