So, your premise is based upon your assumption that road rash is not a factor in the study? Since the study was attempting to prove that wearing a helmet saves lives and doesn't mention what type of injury occurred, I don't think that you can make that claim. What I found interesting that the majority of people who died had multiple injuries even if only one was coded. I think that there is enough evidence, that they could try a study to see if road rash combined with a near, but non fatal injury could be enough to push people over the edge. Besides I think my leathers keep the armour in place better than some elastic and fabric for any of the blunt impacts. Anything that keeps me out of the hospital and back at work the next day is worthwhile in my book.
I'm not sure where you're pulling the half the fatalities in the US number from. Presumably some of them would slide down the road before crashing into an object, others would catch a guardrail and be decapitated, others would fall off a bridge, some are going to be thrown into the air and come down hard.
I also don't think that you can automatically presume that all or even most of the supersport riders in the U.S. are atgatt. Some won't even be wearing helmets.
That doesn't mean that I ride like a maniac depending on whether or not I wear gear. If one were to start out like that, then one would eventually get used to nothing happening with the new dress code and old habits would return.
I find the opposite most interesting. Someone who switches back and forth and thinks "yeah whatever", really scares me. Going to destroy a new pair of jeans "yeah whatever". Using the wrong tool for the job at hand "yeah whatever". These people are more likely to take others with them when they mess up. Ran a red light - yeah whatever".
