Overall I'd give it a "meh". The actual stat breakdowns aren't very helpful:
52% of fatals weren't wearing a helmet. In other words, about half are and half aren't wearing. The key detail left out is, how many riders overall are wearing and how many aren't. Are unhelmeteds more likely to crash than helmet wearers, and if so, why? The stats do say that helmets seem to reduce the likelihood that a crash becomes fatal, but only by about 1/3.
The largest age group for fatalities is 20-29. But, they don't say what proportion of the riding public is that age. If 20-29 yr. olds are also the largest riding group, then they of course will have the highest representation of accidents. They do point out that 46% of riders are now over 40, which helps some, but leaves out which group does the most riding mileage-wise. 40-yr-olds may simply putt around a bit (minus the tourers), whereas the 20-29s may ride as primary transportation.
Alcohol is a problem (DUH), and unlicensed operators are 25% of all fatalities. No big surprises there, though it would be nice to see what the percentage of unlicensed riders is of the overall riding public to see just how much difference licensing makes.
The single-vehicle accident rate is kind of meaningless without a reference, i.e. how does this compare to cars.
We do see that accidents are up on rural roads vs. urban streets, but not by how much, and how does the age of the rider factor into that? A wipeout that might bang up a younger rider on a lighter bike might be fatal for an older rider on a cruiser (more on this later).
More night accidents involve alcohol than daytime ones (DUH), likewise weekend vs. weekday. No surprises there.
Drinkers are more likely to pitch their bikes down the road. Straight riders are more likely to be bagged by a cage driver, but they leave out the total numbers of each.
Large bikes are figuring in more fatal accidents, but they do not discuss what the distribution of bike displacements is. If everyone is riding a large-displacement bike, this stat is meaningless.
Likewise the notation that the mean engine size in fatal crashes has gone up. If bike sizes in general have gone up, (and they have) then of course the mean size will go up. This does not mean that big bikes are necessarily more dangerous (though this does seem to be the intended thrust of this section).
Also, the rate of over-40 riders killed on big bikes is meaningless, since most over-40 riders go out and buy big cruisers, so of course they will be the lion's share of all accidents in that age group. Without correcting for displacement distribution, this stat is also meaningless. If, per x number of bikes in a certain displacement category, big bikes were overrepresented, you might have something.
At best, one can pull out of this that riding with a helmet may improve your chances of surviving a crash, though it says nothing about whether helmeted riders are less likely to be in a crash at all. Don't drink and ride, as if that weren't already obvious to anyone who was a serious rider (and understood the operation of a bike). There's more here, but I really don't feel like digging that deep right now.
please NHTSA studies and an exercise in biased studies. They are just pissed they are no longer allowed to lobby in congress and have to resort to fixing studies the same way the MSM push polls.
FMVSS 218, the federal helmet standard, is a joke. It has ZERO neck standards for helmets, does NOTHING to prevent the neck strap from acting like a noose if the helmet is too heavy, AND only tests helmets to 15 mph.
IOW if you ride a motorcycle faster than 15mph you have exceeded the design limits of the helmet.
These are helmet facts which should be considered so as to prevent a false sence of secuirty.
Knowledge is the only true safety factor.
So when choosing a helmet realize what you are buying and what you are wearing.