there are significantly more cars around than bikes.

I see what you mean and agree, that relative numbers would be nice. But what would the counter argument be? That if there were more bikes, then bike-related deaths would rise more than car-related deaths would shrink? It would be hard to prove that.

Also, the matrix for cities still shows cars as a much bigger problem, while European cities have plenty of cyclists. Again, relative numbers would be nice. Or a comparison between a dutch city and a polish city, for example. But if i compare both tables (overall vs cities), i am certain the argument holds.

At least here are some numbers https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File%3ATravel_distance_per_person_per_day_by_main_travel_mode_for_urban_mobility_on_all_days_%28%25%29_v3.png

Travel distance per person per day by main travel mode for urban

this is about road traffic. I am sure murder goes into an other statistic.

In fairness, without further detail than this chart, it's a bit nuanced. Even the simple figure of 1 death in 82,000 riders I wouldn't say makes a strong case for all those millions of people buying and wearing a helmet.

If it came to be that those 500 were doing speed rather than leisurely riding, then my takeaway would be if you're moving quick, don the protective gear. Likewise, if it were the case that the 500 were riding in shared modality areas, my interpretation would be to put the helmet on when leaving the segregated infrastructure.

It would be unexpected to learn those deaths happened mostly on protected infrastructure by commuters or similar. Either way, while I disagree and don't think this data provides a significant reason to wear a helmet, I am still surprised how many people go without in Europe. Cheap ones can be uncomfortable, sure, but many mediocre helmets are fine. Maybe it's a style thing, or disdain for helmet hair? I haven't the foggiest idea.

The most dangerous pedestrian of all, of course.

the larger trucks get the more they are easily messed up and also they will try (well hopefully) to swearve. Its also why thier numbers jump so much with cars as there are so many of them.

er... yeah that looks weird. I think the truck was only the main vehicle in a crash. Read the little description underneath. There could have been another vehicle involved, which killed the truck driver, maybe?

Is that the raw deaths per vehicle, or does it equalize relative vehicle popularity?

There is a URL to the study. Let us know what you find.

I assume that there are a fair bit more cars on the roads than there are motorbikes, which means that we would not be able to compare them otherwise.

I think i saw somewhere that motorbikes are more deadly relatively, but mostly to their own rider.

Unless, of course, if one simply is trying to sow discord.

Do you mean me? Because i don't have numbers on motorbikes?

But that doesn't fit the narrative

It's all in the name of harm. You can probably group the reasons for the broader picture.

I'd guess they know how many people died, even if there is no police report. Or even if the culprit fled from the crime scene. There is a url to the study.