That line has already been drawn, at the state border. People in Nevada and Oregon are free to ride their cycles without helmets, if they want to. Californians do not tell Oregonians how to live their lives, and neither do Nevadans tell Californians whether they ought to wear helmets, or seat belts, or what the speed limit should be, etc.
To which you replied:
``That line has already been drawn, at the state border. People in Nevada and Oregon are free to ride their cycles without helmets, if they want to.''
I am in complete agreement with your statement, but I don't believe this is in dispute. Since the bill was introduced in the state house buy a state representative, I do not belive this is a federalism issue. Of course, you're right that folks in Oregon or Texas may lobby their state houses, not the California state legislature.
If I may be so bold as to speak for Joe, I believe he was asking where do you draw the line of safety versus liberty. People in motorcycle accidents are significanly less likely to cause injury or slay other motorists than those who have accidents in automobiles. This is the rationale for liability insurance, since most automobile fatalities and injuries involve others.
Where does one rightly draw the line?
Are you or have you ever been a motorcyclist?
Do you believe in the outlaw of possession and sale of motorcycles just because they're dangerous?
What makes you compel the state legislature in your state mandate safety equipment for motorcyclists?
If you're were genuinely concerned about motorcycles, would not the best solution be to remove them from the road altogether, than a helmet law?