[fumanchu]

so you're suggesting that the risk of being maimed and becoming a burdon on society is part of the juice of motorcycling? i do dig on t.s. eliot, though

 

[fumanchu]

this is from an MO article about 250cc machines, that can be found on this website :

"You've got to start somewhere. And just as new pilots aren't strapping themselves into multi-engine jets, beginning riders are ill-advised to start their career with their legs wrapped around a GSX-R750 or a Gold Wing."

...but riders are being encouraged by online forums and manufacturers to do so.

 

[dorkboy]

It might be the case that having helmetless riders is a net gain to the economy. I remember seeing a study by some economists that concluded that smoking saves money for taxpayers, because fewer people make it to old age, which are the expensive years for taxpayers in terms of medical care. I don't have a clue whether the same would be true of helmetless riders or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. The bigger issue is that in order to utilize the " burden to taxpayer" argument, the number of factors to be considered to come up with the real costs is actually pretty staggering, and I am not willing to just assume that the result would favor helmet laws. Anybody seen any good studies?

 

[33129]

The idea that you can have the experience is the juice. The risk is the juice. The splat, while juicy, is the cost. I'm willing to pay the price (bear the societal burden) for the chance for me and you to have the experience.

 

[14173]

I agree wearing a helmet is the smart and correct thing, but, I also believe in freedom of choice. I like the way the Florida law is stated, IF and ONLY IF you have ample insurance, you may ride helmetless.

I have only rode lidless once, through the Tomoka Forest in Florida. A low speed ride, but it still made me nervous.

Tiered licensing? Hmm, I still believe in freedom of choice, but, something should stop an untrained 16 year old from buying and riding a 186 MPH superbike.