At some point in the risk/reward spectrum things start to get a little silly. Hell, why leave the ground at all?
For me it's fly what I can (barely) afford, or not fly. For most people that choice is going to come down on the side of flying.
I will be the first to agree that pistons are not as reliable as turbines, that 3 blades are better than 2, that high inertia is better than low inertia, and that bladder tanks are better than no bladder tanks. And I agree that the list of Robinson AD's and SB's tells a story. But that story is now well evolved, and other than the recent uptick in apparent, overly fast, turbulence penetrations in lightly loaded R66's, modern stat's don't seem to say that there is a dramatic problem with flying these machines if they are flown within their specified limits to any greater extent than other machines.
That said, I'd still really like to take a look at the raw data the Bell_ringer alludes to, if someone can point me at it. The FAA data I see does not cause me to draw conclusions that Robinsons "simply fall out of the sky" at any greater rate than other makes, i.e. other makes "simply fall out of the sky" as well.