My interpretation of the original claim was that, on a per capita basis, the rate of fatal accidents among motorcyclists with license, registration, insurance, and helmets is 30% that of motorcyclists who have none of those things, with no particular claim implied about motorcyclists who fulfill between 1-3 of those four criteria. I know that wasn't necessarily the only possible interpretation but I think it's a reasonable one.
> on a per capita basis, the rate of fatal accidents among motorcyclists with license, registration, insurance, and helmets is 30% that of motorcyclists who have none of those things
When presented with unsourced statistics on the web, probably best to assume the weakest interpretation.
Maybe, but I was also assuming good faith, which entails assuming that Workaccount2 is neither dishonest enough to intentionally share misleading statistics nor completely ignorant about the more basic and obvious ways that statistics can be misleading. If you always assume the weakest interpretation you spend a lot of time quibbling over basic points.
