Quote from: KevinC

If increased medical costs are  the biggest arguement for making riders wear helmets, it is only a short leap to banning motorcycles entirely. We don't "need" to ride bikes, and they do cause increased medical costs.

Not to twist this argument in one direction or another... Banning motorcycles isnt 1 step from enforcing helmets as mandatory... Motorcycles are legitimate and very practical modes of transportation. And frankly if there were more I mean a lot more on the roads... atleast 50% of vehicular traffic (can be easily imposed by raising taxes on cars... a lot) then both bikes and cars will be safer. Also think of the savings in road costs, parking costs, and not to mention oil, metal and labor. If $$$ saved was the argument behind the helmet law... Banning cars is my next step for saving costs. Dont worry those people wont get laid off, car factories will make motorcycles and those assembly lines will still keep rolling. Do like japan did... every year the car is on the road it costs more and more to register and insure it... cos lets face it... some clunkers are downright dangerous not just for the people next to it when it lets go but also for the ones driving them.
In effect what I am saying is...
Cost savings aren't the reason for the helmet law, its the inability of governments to understand and the blind desire of people to snuff out who are not like they are... and yes motorcycles will be the next step to be legislated out... so people that wrote and wanted helmet laws to be imposed... suck. BTW I always wear one, full face and snell rated at a minimum...
Cool.
Srinath.

Correct me if I am wrong Casimir, but don't you have to have a life insurance policy of at least 10g's to ride without a helmet legally?  I am probably wrong, but I thought I had heard that from someone.

Quote from: The_good_guyCourtesy of Fark.com

I read your post, and all I could think was "Haha he's a Farker."

somethingawful.com 4 life!

I really don't like the idea of government legislating all kinds of personal choices.  It's a tough question.  Good arguments on all sides.  I wonder if, when buying insurance, you could sign off regarding wearing/not wearing a helmet, which would be reflected in your premiums.  Then, if you lied to pay a lower premium, and were in an accident without a helmet, the policy is void.  (I know, the taxpayer would likely get zonked eventually)

Beyond that, I go with Darwin.  Eventually, all the morons who think it's OK to ride without a helmet just won't be around,  and won't pass on the "stupid" gene.

Quote from: MooseCorrect me if I am wrong Casimir, but don't you have to have a life insurance policy of at least 10g's to ride without a helmet legally?  I am probably wrong, but I thought I had heard that from someone.

I don't know. I didn't consider it long enough to see if there were other requirements.

Quote from: dmp221Beyond that, I go with Darwin.  Eventually, all the morons who think it's OK to ride without a helmet just won't be around,  and won't pass on the "stupid" gene.

But that could also apply to motorcycle riders! If that worked, all we'd be left with are boring people driving Volvos very slowly....

Fortunately, Darwin's Law only ensures the survival of the merely adequate, and only has effect up to breeding age. Us old crazies will never be eliminated!