Not in the context of this argument, where injured dead people costing us being the issue. If they are not injured or dead, then there is no reason to count them as part of the equation.Spark wrote:
I'll leave you to work that one out, it's a fairly basic part of any stats-based argument like this. HINT: Raw numbers are often highly unrepresentative.lowing wrote:
What difference does it make? IF they are not injured then they are not "COSTING" us anything.Spark wrote:
Uhhhh bad use of stats there. 60% of all fatalities were helmetless, yes, but what proportion of riders in total go helmetless? My suggestion is that they would be staggeringly over-represented in those statistics.
The link based the numbers on ALL registered bikers for that year, that is all that is needed in the context of this discussion. 60% of them go helmet less and 41 percent wear one. If you are going to argue "COST", then all you need are the stats of those that COST you something and the non injured, be they helmet-less or equipped do not COST us anything.