The war on white males (who comprise most of the victims of the helmet war) continues.

And I guess (if you statistics are correct…) that the white males are losing….because their heads are getting bashed in? What would you consider a win? And why is it that it’s cool to wear leathers and boots,
but not helmets? You wanna be really cool, wear shorts and sandals; hell, that’s really manly!

How about this; if you want to pay a premium (and I mean a LOT more money) to your health insurance provider so that I don’t have to shoulder any of the cost of your brain-spilling accidents, then fine. Don’t wear a helmet. But if I have see my costs go up one cent because of your desire to act like an irresponsible child….then I have no pity for you.

Honestly, I think this is really a bit of social Darwinism; if you’re stupid enough to ride without a helmet, and you die as a result, then we really didn’t need you around in the first place.

This has nothing to do with “individual rights,” however much anyone wants to make it so. It’s just idiotic.

Oh, and I bet the spouses and children of the dead and mangled helmetless riders are really happy that Bubba rode without one. Yea, that’s showin’ ‘em!

Pilt

The article does not cite the motorcycle injury rate, which would be a more accurate figure on increase in fatalities as a result of the 2003 repeal of the Helmet Law.

That being said, it is incredibly foolish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. The arguement of personal choice and “its an individual right” is easily squashed when you consider the cost we all incur when a rider undergoes emergency surgery in the ER. In fact, only gun shot wounds require a more expensive medical intervention.

Unfortunately, we can only expect the number of deaths to increase as motorcycle ridership continues to rise, especially when you consider the rising cost of fuel.

We cannot legislate commonsense, so some idiots will continue to ride helmetless. However, we can pass laws to protect the rest of us. Why should society be burdened with the medical costs of helmetless riders? Why shoud we pay higher insurance premiums because insurance companies have to pay so much for the damage done during accidents involving helmetless motorcyclists? Reinstate the law riquiring helmets!

1st Responders should pickup the bike and get it to the garage as soon as possible to avoid any further damage and leave the helmetless rider on the side of the road until death do us part.

If you are worried about the cost of those consequences faced who choose of their own free will whether or not to wear a helmet to the people of the commonwealth, why not advocate finding a way to insure that the costs does not fall upon the whole tax paying population of the state (as, I notice, Piltdown Man more or less has)? Further, is the fact that allowing the choice of risky behavior, viz. riding a motorcycle without a helmet, might impose a higher cost to those who do not ride, although I do not know how much and noöne has quantified the cost in their reply, necessarily mean that the government should restrict that choice? If that is one’s standard for what the government should control or disallow, then one might be logically expected to believe in coercive government prescription of what foods the people may eat, what vices they may indulge and how the citizenry may live their lives in general.

Nearly all of use behave in ways that may lead to higher costs for the population at large and by the standard implied in the above responses, those behaviors should be banned or regulated. One may acceptably believe this as a matter of political philosophy, but one should decide if the pleasures from living life imperfectly as one chooses are inferior in value to the additional costs imposed. It is also worth considering that the any law which the government must enforce entails the costs of the enforcement, so one should also demonstrate that the costs of enforcement do not exceed the increases in cost alleged above.

Incidentally, the degree whereto those who have responded here are incensed at this suggests that the motivation for your invective is more a vicious distaste for libertarians than any actual interest in the health of motorcyclists or the cost to the tax payers, whom I suspect that some of whom responded would be far from loathe to impose a further cost in the name of their own pet programs, the value whereof the objects of their contempt are likely to find as absent as they find the value in allowing motorcyclists to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.

We could all step back and let the “natural order of things” be in control, but all of us know there are those that preach no government interference yet can’t handle the natural order if it isn’t THEIR natural order. Strange enough it is the “nannies” this time that want some interdiction to lower health care costs, when customarily it is the “non-nanny” group that screams foul for NO interdiction to lower their health care costs. I also found it interesting that Paludicola gingerly danced for 3 paragraphs without mentioning the “nanny” word. Maybe this is a sign that the terribly overworked and out of style “nanny” is gone forever.
JP

There needs to be an insurance fund paid for by those riders that choose not to wear a helmet. The decision to not wear a helmet should not be a burden to everyone. I’m not sure how you get this legislation passed though. How do you reason with someone that is so stupid that they will ride a motorcycle and not wear a helmet?

What do you do with an out of state rider passing through that decides to take off his helmet? There are really only two things to consider…do we make it a law to wear a helmet or leave it up to the individual rider and pay the price. In my opinion leaving it up to the rider will continue to critically injure or kill so many that thought it won’t happen to me and cost all of us in higher insurance costs or simply reinstate the helmet law. It is very easy to enforce. Its not like you can ride around without a helmet and no one can see you.

I am sure that health care costs are influenced to a much greater degree by people who don’t exercise or eat a healthy diet than those who choose to ride without helmets. It is the start of a slippery slope if we decide to determine one’s insurance costs based on thier lifestyle.