I'm guessing either your joking or you just "math challenged". You can't say 57.5 percent of riders died because they wore a helmet and 42.4 died because they didn't unless you can show that exactly 50% of all riders in the US wear a helmet and 50% don't. (your numbers don't even add up to 100%...)
Assuming your NOT retarded, let me give you an example of your faulty math here.
Let's say you , a man, move to a small town. After getting there, you find out that 80% of the folks living there are women. Using your logic, I should be able to say that there is a 8 out of 10 possibility that you have the ability to become pregnant.
The fact is there is a zero percent chance you'd ever become pregnant. Right?
Your using the same logic to say because more riders in the United States wear helmets that the odds are more likely that you'll die because you wear a helmet.
Another case of "skewing data" .... Sorry, but you did.
It's been shown that in states with NO helmet laws, about 79% of riders don't wear a helmet. (this figure from the National Highway folk) compare that to 100% of riders in helmet law states that wear a helmet.
If only 14 percent of ALL fatalities occur in states with
Mandatory helmet laws, then 86 percent of all deaths in states with no helmet laws then that can only mean two things:
The states with no helmet laws are just intrinsically more dangerous.
That there's a higher chance of dying if you don't wear a helmet compared to if you do.
Several studies over the past 20 years have seemed to point to the fact that there's a 37% better chance of surviving a motorcycle accident if you are wearing a helmet as opposed to not wearing one. This recent study seems to not only support this , but show that that number might be on the low side.
Please let folks with actual understanding of statistical analysis do the math and keep your well intended, but wrong, interpretations of data to yourself.