Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
FireForged said:A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day.
Well that depends on whether you are taking the poster literally and examining only the portion you quoted or whether you are inferring basic common sense principles to his example.
Typically, an analysis goes like this:
1) What is the probability of the event happening?
2) What are the consequences of the event happening?
3) What are the costs of mitigating that event?
You joke about the NASCAR helmet; but when I was growing up we rolled around in steel, no-crumple zone, no airbag cars with seatbelts unused and children unrestrained. If you'd have suggested a five year old needed to be strapped into a car seat and seatbelted, people would have looked at you like you were the person who should be wearing a helmet - all the time. At some point, society decided the high consequence of a relatively low risk event was worth the cost in mandating car seats, more effective restraints, airbags, etc.
The analysis on whether a NASCAR helmet (or a handgun around the house) benefits you depends on how you evaluate each of those three factors above - which is necessarily going to be a very individualistic process. In both cases, the probability of either is very low and the consequences very high, so perceived cost becomes the major determinant. A guy who races stock cars at Texas Motor Speedway on the weekends might see everyday wear of a helmet as less of a cost than someone who rides the bus to work.