Something I think this thread speaks to as well is the attitude taken toward theory and practice of Ukemi in the dojo dictates or reflects how it is taught and practiced. The spectrum might be on one end a heavy focus on O'Sensei's philosophy not to harm. The opposite may be very little focus or adhesion to such philosophy. Both ends have very different approaches to Ukemi as well as (related) to the technique.
The core of it all is that Ukemi isn't something that is naturally done and has to be learned, thus a technique in itself. That is something you are always improving on. And honestly, it is some that isn't going to be used outside of the dojo; there is a very low likelihood your are going to be thrown on the street. More than likely taking Ukemi on the street results from a non-martial arts incident. Therefore, I think the attention of Ukemi should be placed under the circumstances, applications and intention toward the safety of the practitioners. Do I need to mention liability insurance. ya see where I am coming from cause all this talk of Ukemi is underlined with that ugly reality. And the art of Ukemi takes a back sit.
Point being if you're not getting injured (after say 1 year of practicing Ukemi) in the dojo or at a seminar, where your pinky is placed and all that is superficial to the core purpose of being protected. That is my opinion based on any liability and stuff. That really is the core of the matter (liability, court, being sued, and stuff) as I see it. Because there is such a wide spectrum of interpretation of O'Sensei's philosophy that relates to Ukemi you really got to look if the Ukemi is protecting people from injury.