What are some good responses to this helmet statement?

OFF THE WIRE
SCREWDRIVER RESPONDS,
I can relate since, last summer (July 09) I was hit going 80 mph and kept upright till I slowed down long enough to actually go down (BOT DOTS helped the bike come out from under me.) and land on my rt shoulder and head. which resulted in 3 plates, 48 screws, 9 staples in my back, and a fractured jawbone.. Had I been wearing a full face helmet,I would not be here to write this since I would have snapped my neck.... AS told to me by the Surgeon who patched me up..........

A few months ago, one of the QuickThrottle writers made the statement that she started wearing a helmet to prevent her from getting sun damage to her face. And she said, "It's a good thing I did because I had an accident and without a helmet I would have injured my face."
And more recently I heard another person say, "A helmet saved my life."
What would a good BOLT response to that specific statement be?
I'm brainstorming:
1. Is that a fact? Or is that your impression?
2. Is it possible that wearing a helmet gave you a false sense of security?
3. Is it possible that you felt confident to lay your head on the ground because you knew you were wearing a helmet?
4. Did the helmet contribute in any way to the accident by:
Obstructing your vision?
Causing extra head buffeting to wind?
Was it so heavy that it delayed your reaction to turn your head and better anticipate the problem to avoid the accident?
5. If you hadn't taken the extra time to don a helmet is it possible you could have avoided being at the wrong place at the wrong time?
6. Have you ever ridden without a helmet to compare your level of traffic awareness and riding competency?
7. If you had been wearing a full-face helmet would it have been easy to perform CPR on you if you were unconscious?
And then after getting them to answer all those questions, how about this one:
Are you so confident that helmets always save lives that you would bet your house on that statement?

TigerLilyFrom Whodabob:

Great questions Lily. I was just thinking that the author either missed his target audience or intentionally preached to the choir because it's an easy audience to target. What I mean is it's easy to tell an audience of bikers that helmets should be a choice, but that's not persuasion. Bikers already agree it should be a choice. To protect and fight for freedoms this author's pen ( and remember pen and sword anaologies, this author and yourself are fighting for our freedoms with pens) needs to persuade John Q Public and those with legislative votes that these freedoms should be protected.

Here's where I think John Q public stands:

* "I didn't like them passing a seat belt law...but I got used to it and it saved thousands of lives"

* " Those bikers will probably do the same thing, they'll get used to it and lives will be saved."

* "If fewer people are killed, then it's for the greater good and sometimes the greater good is worth sacrificing some rights"

* " Hey they're all either punks on crotch rockets disobeyeing the traffic laws I do, or they're loud piped scofflaws that annoy the hell out of me anyway. Why should I care if they're inconvienenced with wearing a helmet?"

Now if I'm right and this is what the general public thinks, how is presenting a case that lidless riders don't really cost the taxpayers the money that helmet law proponents say they do going to change a mind? See where I'm going? It's not a persuasive enough argument to get them to call their congressman and tell them how they want the rep to vote. And that's what ultimately needs to be done to protect freedoms. SO... I think the challenge for the pen wielder is to write for the non biker, not the biker. How are you going to get the soccer Mom to make a fight for your freedom also a fight for hers? She's made minority rights her own and she's made homosexuals rights her own, can you get her to make biker's rights her own? I'm probably way too naive but I think that's the angle that will actually change votes.