You know this isn’t true. They do tests on this gear (particularly the helmets), and they are required to pass a number of these tests and fulfill a certain standard. If this gear provided no additional safety, then these tests would show it.
This is unless you believe the tests don’t really reflect reality, but then you are objecting science accepted by several regulatory bodies. You’ll have to give me more evidence than your word against decades of experiments and expert opinions.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are implying that the organs of some people are worth more than the lives the same same people.
Regardless, the discussion has come a long way from:
Motorcycles should be banned if seatbelts are enforced
→ But motorcycles have safety laws as well to protect the rider
→ Not where I live
→ But in other places they do
→ Well I’ll imply—but not state—that those safety rules don’t protect the riders
→ But the safety gear does* protect riders*
→ And then something about organ harvesting of accidents.
This is a silly debate. You’ve convinced me of nothing, you had a point there somewhere, but it got lost in irrelevance. Both motorcycle riders and automobile drivers have safety gear for their own self preservation which they are required to use in most places. Yes there are exceptions to this (such as Florida; or riders of scooters/light motorcycles) but also to cars (New Hampshire does not have seat belt requirements to 17+; neither do many states in India; Bus riders don’t have to wear seat belts in many places; tractors don’t require seat belts; etc.)
This is unless you believe the tests don’t really reflect reality, but then you are objecting science accepted by several regulatory bodies. You’ll have to give me more evidence than your word against decades of experiments and expert opinions.