[Gena Bukin]

Why is it that so many states have strict seat belt laws but no law regarding motorcycle helmets? It would seem to me that it should be both or neither.

And it would seem to me that if you choose not to wear a helmet, your insurance premiums should be much higher because of the increased risk.

Insurance companies don't like helmet laws. It's a different dynamic with motorcycles than with cars. In cars, the difference between no seatbelt and seatbelt can be the difference between being killed or seriously injured and walking away. With a motorcycle, the difference between no helmet and a helmet can be the difference between getting killed and being traumatically injured.

Insurance company bean-counters figured out a long time ago that dead policy holders are cheaper to care for than traumatically injured policy holders.

[KarlInOhio]

That ignores that there will be many accidents where the helmetless driver will be crippled while he would have been fine with a helmet. I don't know what the distribution of accidents are in the following cases:

fine with a helmet, crippled without one
fine with a helmet, dead without one
crippled with a helmet, dead without one
And all the cases where the helmet doesn't really matter.

The insurance companies would like helmet laws if the first two outnumber the third.

I've heard one reason for the seat belt law vs.lack of a helmet law is that once you need a helmet the wreck is over for the motorcyclist. In a car you still have a ton or two of rolling metal which is far better to have a driver able to steer and brake rather than be thrown out of driving position.