[jstrain]

I have no argument with your premise that helmets are a good thing, but why do we need the government to protect us from ourselves?



I think you will find that 99% of those that oppose helmet laws don't think helmets are useless. Much so the opposite, they agree that they are beneficial. They just don't want the government making their decisions for them.



Like most everyone else here, I never ride without a helmet, but I don't think the government needs to be making sure I take good care of my body.



I know that it sounds like a huge difference between riding helmetless vs riding at all, but it doesn't take a big jump of logic to say that the government needs to protect us from ourselves by outlawing motorcycles.

 

[jstrain]

I guess I would have to say no, I don't mind. I have what I consider to be acceptable insurance payments for our two bikes.



I'd love to see some sort of real data on what that sort of things actually costs. I'm willing to bet that the amount of money spent on helmetless accident victims pales significantly in comparison to money wasted on other stuff.



I guess another way to look at is this. I ride a Sprint 1050. Are there a bunch of people that spend their lives riding 250cc bikes that have to bear the a bit of the cost of me riding a 1050? I'm willing to bet that part of that guys insurance premium subsidizes my riding a much bigger / faster bike.



Somewhere along the line, we all are costing someone else money. I can certainly understand your position, but for me, I'd rather pay a bit higher insurance and still retain the freedom to how we want to ride.