Perhaps, or perhaps, not. If the 37% was calculated using the known number of people that had accidents with vs. without a helmet, and the number of survivors was known, it would be relatively easy to calculate.

Unlike the chance everyone has of being involved in a motorcycle accident in their lifetime. That has far too many variables and unknowns.

 

Still arguing helmet effectiveness? Tell us about your anti-helmet campaigns in all forms of motorsports and anti-seatbelt campaign.

 

The numbers provided are exactly as stated on the webpage. I did not include all the data points on the page nor did I change any of the numbers. You can go to the same website and look at all the stats. After you look at it, come back and tell me that "my" numbers are incorrect...not "my" numbers.

So, obviously you are retarded enough also to comment in this thread with the rest of us..;-)

 

Don't take it personal. I am not attacking you but your previous declarative statement that there are more deaths to helmeted riders than not helmeted riders. You have yet to present anything to back up that statement...and still haven't except to change argument to another tack.

If you said "in my opinion" not being declarative then no argument from me. An opinion is an opinion. But to declare a point with nothing to substantiate it and then ignore replies with facts that don't support your statements is not how you make your points as it does not address the validity of such points.

Yes, no way to absolutely get statistics from every motorcycle accident. However from the ones that are recorded, it substantiates that helmeted riders are less likely to die be injured in an accident vs non-helmeted riders. What you are arguing is that those stats mean nothing because there may be some number of unrecorded accidents with non-helmeted riders were able to walk away.

I can say then based on that that there may be some number of unrecorded accidents with helmeted riders that were able to walk away because of a helmet.
Your reasoning can work both ways.

As far as the cancer statement...where the heck did that come from? What does that have to do with our discussion? I've lost my Dad to pancreatic cancer and it runs in the family. It is a terrible thing. How that relates to my statements to you on here I have no clue what you are on about?

 

I see my post was reported. After reading it I clarified it to better read what I was meaning to express...even had a wink after it...Golly Gee-whiz. Guess the last resort of people with no argument. Okey dokey. Guess it is time to take my bad self from this thread..

 

This is what I thought. I didn't defend the statement "there are more deaths to helmeted riders than not helmeted riders" because I didn't make the statement. And I wasn't even aware that you asked someone to "back up that statement".

My posts/position is that 'deaths' are irrelevant. When a person dies there problems are over. It is those that 'live' with a head injury that really suffer IMO.

 

You not only mistake me for someone else, I know who but will leave that for you to discover, you apparently didn't read my posts.

If you had, you would realize that when another member was feeling bad about having cancer, I explained the cancer in my family in an effort to ease his mind somewhat. Since that was the only 'declarative statement' I made, I thought that is what bothered you.

I'm sorry about your dad, colon cancer took my dad.

 

Yes it can work both ways, but " some number of unrecorded accidents with helmeted riders that were able to walk away because of a helmet" is the way I meant it.

If you read my posts, and didn't confuse me with someone else, you would know that.

 

Not the numbers you provided! The percentages you calculated!

You have now proven you are bad with English in addition to being bad at math! Well done! Lol (pardon the pun)

 

Now the debate has turned to speculative assumptions The thing with statistics is generally the organization providing them does so for there benefit. Helmet manufacturers would love everybody that rides to buy one of their helmets.Our government in America is worthless because of statistics provided by lobbyists.

For some reason some motorcyclists are obsessed with justification of safety gear and some are not. I personally ride because i love to. Its a greater pleasure to ride without followed by a half shell and FF as a last ditch choice. I ride behind a wind shield and rarely if ever get hit by a bug . I do wear ballistic safety eye wear that keeps the wind out of my eyes. I wear logging boots for ankle support because i do have to put my feet down every time i stop. I wear a vented HD textile jacket because it looks cool and its functional. I wear padded leather gloves for comfort. Nowhere did i say i wear this gear to protect me if i have the unfortunate event of going down.

People who choose to ride for pleasure are free spirited risk takers. I know that i could die in a bike or car accident or be severely injured everyday. I also know somebody will die in their sleep somewhere tonight and a perfectly healthy soul will die of a massive heart attack tomorrow. So you have several arguments in this debate. Will you be involved in a motorcycle accident? Will you be killed or suffer a TBI? Will a helmet save you or cause more injury or death because of it? Nobody with any certainty knows the answer. I sure don't

Ironically if somebody dies or suffers a TBI in an auto accident it seen as just that but iif somebody dies or has a TBI on a two wheeler immediate target of focus by mainly people who don't ride i whether or not a rider was wearing or not. Being safety conscious and proactive in your riding is far more important than anything we choose to wear.