That sounds more like a problem with socialism than helmets. Won't you help fight socialism rather than conceding to it?
The only reason why anyone other than myself should suffer if I splatter my brains across the macadam (If I'm a single guy) is because of socialized medicine, not the lack of a helmet.
As it is, my wife asks me to wear a helmet, and I do.
Speaking of that, would you ask the state to mandate that I wear a condom when engaging in sex with my wife if I don't have a certain income?
Why should the state mandate that I wear a helmet on my head and not mandate that I wear a helmet on my willie?
It should be between me and my wife.
Bingo, we have a winner. Collectivists who put the interests of many ahead of the few put their 'stripes' on display for all to see. In defense of the country this would manifest itself in the form of a draft. However, during a time of national crisis, volunteers would be numerous enough to make forced enlistment unnecessary (and among a freedom enjoying populace, unthinkable). Think of cycle riders as mere draftees in the state's plan to institute their vision of a greater good. A win-win for the State, those who might have chosen to voluntarily wear a helmet may figure that the state has made this choice for them.
chookter: That sounds more like a problem with socialism than helmets.
chookter, you've cut right to the heart of the issue. This needs to be stated over and over. As it is now, this argument has been largely absent from the public debate over helmet and seatbelt laws. We need to change that - good job!
After all the money Grey Davis pissed away, this is down in the noise. Can't legislation be passed against assuming the financial burden of the unintended consequences of electing socialists? The choice to wear a helmet is up to the individual. I do all the time. That's me. I will not abridge the freedom of others because it might impact my wallet, that reasoning leads to places we don't want to go, but are unfortunately heading to.
NM greetings, Slim