for Socalpunx:

ok you called me on my cell and explained your point...

so i did a bit of digging
heres what i found:

NHTSA admits that motorcycle accidents make up only 1/10 of 1% of all medical expenses

The rate of head injuries to non-helmeted riders (24.9% of total fatal & non-fatal injuries by body location) is less than the rate of head injuries for unrestrained auto drivers (39.6%). Moreover, in terms of shear numbers, there are nearly 10 times more auto fatalities attributed to head injuries than for motorcyclists.

45.5% of motorcyclists involved in accidents had no motorcycle license; 92% had no formal training and more than half had less than 6 months experience. 62% of the accidents and 50% of the fatalities involve riders between the ages of 17-26. Hurt Report, Traffic Safety Center of USC

to me it would go to show that requiring automobile drivers to wear a helmet makes much more sense than motorcycle helmet laws... and mandatory safety courses would serve to reduce costly accidents and injuries more than any other law... you convince people to pass a helmet law for cars and i will give in to a law for motorcycles...

one more fact to think about, and im sure you have heard the first part of this:

NHTSA reports show 40% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash.

sounds pretty bad huh
to bad the, rarely reported, rest of that statistic goes like this

40% [/b]were[/b] wearing helemts at the time of the crash

20% were undetermined

add it up and look at the numbers.... NHTSA only posts the first part of this... when you factor in the rest of the numbers it is obvious that wearing a helmet and not wearing one has little impact on crash survivability.... nice spin,huh