[kqr]

Your argument is that the additional protection of a helmet is not worth the additional inconvenience for you when you are walking or driving.

That's the exact same argument the anti-helmet crowd is making of cycling.

In order for your argument to work, you have to either provide a quantitative basis for why your tradeoff totally is worth it and the other is not, or you have to come up with a qualitatively different argument.

[fsckboy]

I'm not making an argument, neither about helmets for pedestrians nor cyclists. I'm pointing out that others are not focusing on the right metrics to make their arguments, or are providing spurious commentary.

> the additional protection of a helmet is not worth the additional inconvenience

I actually pointed out that protection of a helmet for pedestrians is called for as standard practice (by others, not by me)