The studies I was reading allowed for the differences. The one in Melborne took a focus or control group. U.S. National Safety Council took the total number of cars and the total number of bikes along with reported accident stats. They then did the severity ratings.
My conclusion was, its all junk science but I cannot stand behind my original stance that bikes are more dangerous than cars. I will always stand behind the stance that if you get hit on your bike you are more likely to die. Thats a no brainer nobody should need explained. As you may get hit with less frequency on your bike you may be safer from accidents, however once hit all bets are off.
On Helmets nobody includes the dead ones from massive injury to the body they only look for head injury for those without helmets. I think its fair to probably say a helmet is safer once hit than no helmet. One could also argue the field of vision and sound advantages of no helmet may avoid collision. I dunno. Rode 15 miles today without a helmet. Why? bacause I can lol.
