Originally Posted by
wphamilton
I can't help but point out that to answer your question, you must consider the probability of each outcome.
Each is a one-time cost, there are only two outcomes being considered, you assume that the helmet is completely effective in preventing death, and you're only talking about the dollar value, so this is simple.
Say the funeral is $3000, or 20 times the cost of the helmet. If during your entire cycling career, you have a 5% chance of getting killed without the helmet then the costs are equivalent. If you have greater than 5% chance of getting killed, buy the helmet to save money. Less than 5%, the helmet loses out dollar-wise.
I suggest that if the odds of having that severe an accident really were 5% or greater, no one would risk climbing on a bike. Therefore, given your parameters it is the helmet manufacturers who make out like a bandit.
Funny how you edited what I said to fit your purpose -- such shameless loading of the dice.
I clearly considered THREE outcomes. (1) Helmet + no-head-injury, (2) No-helmet + lethal-head-injury, (3) No-helmet + serious-head-injury.
In outcome (3) I even enumerated some of the typical treatment, cost unspecified but probably gigantic.
Your handling or probability is also hilarious. Statistics merely recount what happened to a population, and the same never happens again, though maybe an approximation, who knows. Most importantly, statistics do not determine in the slightest what happens to particular individuals.
Outcome (1) benefits helmet makers indeed, but you only need the helmet to save your head once, and it's YOU who makes out like a bandit. I know, I am one.