Not skewing data, only using theirs. They seem to also assume that the riders in states with no helmet laws are ALL not wearing helmets. That is not the case. They also do not take into account the number of registered bikes in the no helmet law states compared to the helmet law states. This study seems to have been done by a 10 year old but I'm sure it was done by someone getting a healthy government grant and has never been near a motorcycle. We should have the choice to wear a helmet or not.^That's a great job of skewing data. Am sure all the anti-helmet folk will enjoy using it.
The study was not comparing the overall fatalities of helmeted riders (which make up the larger group of all riders) to non helmeted riders. What they are saying is out of all motorcycle deaths, states that have helmet laws only account for 14% of them... Meaning states with no helmet laws account for 86% of all motorcycle deaths.
Now just from that, what do you think that seems to say?
I have no bandwagon. I dont give a flying fuk if you wear a helmet or not. You are the one that seems to have an agenda on the subject and that's what they would call "motive" to screw with figures until it matched your agenda. I don't care either way so I have no reason to juggle data to fit my needs.^^^ I am very far from math challenged. If you don't like their figures argue with them. I'm using their figures as they stated them. I think you are the one with the problem interpeting the data because you don't like the data. Let people do the math and they can decide how to interpet the study.Get off your bandwagon and let people make their own decisions on helmets and other safety equipment. I guess you are one of the liberal a-holes who want government to control everything and everyone.
KM, that is an EXCELLENT example of how the use of statistical percentages can allow a study to come to an utterly ridiculous conclusion. So let's say we leave the percentages out of the helmet study in question. The FACT is that there are many more severe or fatal head injuries that occur in CAR accidents than occur in motorcycle accidents. Granted there are many more cars on the road and that's probably why. But the FACT is that if we required helmets in AUTOMOBILES, there would likely be many more lives saved than if we restricted the helmet laws to motorcycles only, just because of the shear number of automobile-related head injuries compared to motorcycle-related head injuries (without using statistical percentages to skew the data). Professional car drivers, who likely are much better at avoiding accidents than the general public, routinely wear helmets on the track. Why is there no such outrage that typical citizen drivers are not required to do the same? So until the government is ready to require occupants of ALL vehicles to wear a helmet, don't discriminate against motorcyclists, a very small percentage of total vehicles and total vehicle-related head injuries. Thank you.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?
Maybe you should re-read my post if you can understand English. I made no judgement about wearing a helmet or not. My first words were " stupid and flawed referring to the figures and conclusions given. There is no juggling of figures here. Don't try and put words in my mouth. I have never posted an opinion on this site about not wearing a helmet. I don't need your advice on whats safe or not and I don't want it either. Another fact I'll remind you of is that I live in New York state which was one of the first states to enact the helmet law and I have been wearing one for over 35 years. The 1000s of riders in this state who have died in motorcycle accidents were also wearing helmets. CORRECTION- There was one rider killed not wearing a helmet that I know of.. Last year there was a anti-helmet law rally and ride ( Syracuse,NY ). The leader of the rally, during the rally, got in an accident and was killed. They say the helmet probably would have saved his life.I have no bandwagon. I dont give a flying fuk if you wear a helmet or not. You are the one that seems to have an agenda on the subject and that's what they would call "motive" to screw with figures until it matched your agenda. I don't care either way so I have no reason to juggle data to fit my needs.
I actually believe one should have a choice here, but I'm not going to alter data to fit that opinion. Any "study" can have it's flaws, but purposely disregarding even simple math equations to make up some fictitious and meaningless numbers to make your case is pathetic.
And sure, it's not really rocket science to see that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one. If you really don't believe this than yes, you are retarded.
This whole discussion has been gone over and over hundreds of times. Turning it into a political issue rather than a safety issue is it seems the main problem.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck....it's a duck. Arguing freedom of choice is fine, but saying helmets are in fact bad is the stupidest thing you can attempt to do.
The real great thing I see out of this, is that the folks that refuse to wear helmets at least run a better chance of having their DNA culled from society...
Wrong again. Still trying to put words in my mouth. Here is what I said:^ it was fine untill YOU wrote , " It's safer to not wear a helmet" ...which of course we all know is ridiculous....but you wrote it anyway. Now some yahoo is going to read that and go tell his friends he
" just read on the innernet that a guberment study shows it's safer to not wear a helmet"
It's really pointless to continue here. But if you are going to say something is "flawed and stupid" at least explain why. The only stupid thing I read was your statement above. Sorry you can't see it that way.
I will add that alot of head trauma in car accidents is not caused by a blow to the head, but just the G forces at work when one goes from 70 mph to zero in a really short distance. Many folks don't wear seatbelts and not every car on the road has an airbag. The use of airbags and seatbelts has shown that wearing a helmet in a car might be more of a safety hazard than the benefits it could offer.
About 80% of the non riding public believe motorcycle riders should wear a helmet. Would guess the number is really small on those that think wearing a helmet in their car is s good idea.....
In both sentences I said " using their figures ". I did not say I agreed with it or condone not wearing a helmet. Their figures in this study can only be interpeted one way. It is obvious to me someone associated with the study did the math and saw the results were not showing what they wanted. That is the reason for the crap about 12% in 20 states. If you die in a motorcycle accident with or without a helmet it doesn't make a difference what state you are from or what their laws are. I started my original post by saying the study was stupid and flawed. I should have also said very misleading and potentially harmfulWhat a stupid flawed study. If you use their figures it is SAFER NOT to wear a helmet. Using their figures 57.5% died wearing a helmet and 42.4% died not wearing a helmet. More government BS.
^Right, incorrectly by you. Saying it doesn't matter what state you live in is insanely funny to me because that was the one and ONLY thing the study showed.Their figures in this study can only be interpeted one way. It is obvious to me someone associated with the study did the math and saw the results were not showing what they wanted. That is the reason for the crap about 12% in 20 states. If you die in a motorcycle accident with or without a helmet it doesn't make a difference what state you are from or what their laws are. I started my original post by saying the study was stupid and flawed. I should have also said very misleading and potentially harmful