An example of straightforwardly dishonest use of statistics as a marketing tool for a product with no evaluation of actual protective effect of their product.
10 seconds evaluation of the first data table shows that before 2010 almost no casualties were recorded where helmet use was not known, most likely these were recorded as "no helmet". The ad bases it's claim on a 2006 study of data from the previous decade. They have cherry picked some old data because it is the most frightening. As a meaningful statistic it is shit.
An example of straightforwardly dishonest use of statistics as a marketing tool for a product with no evaluation of actual protective effect of their product.
10 seconds evaluation of the first data table shows that before 2010 almost no casualties were recorded where helmet use was not known, most likely these were recorded as "no helmet". The ad bases it's claim on a 2006 study of data from the previous decade. They have cherry picked some old data because it is the most frightening. As a meaningful statistic it is shit.