Thursday, November 25, 2010

A Case Against Motorcycle Helmets published a wonderful article.

After describing the controversy, namely that some say motorcycle injuries only hurt the rider and others say we all end up paying for the care of these injured guys, the author mentions a few fascinating benefits to the no-helmet-law idea.

At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.
What's your opinion? Is this a case of the government being too invasive? Should motorcycle riders make up their own minds and we'll let the pros and cons balance themselves out?

Please leave a comment.


  1. I completely agree. I go so far as to believe that those who don't wear helmets should be prohibited from making any type of insurance claim as well. Let them get patched up on their own dime. If they can't pay, send them home.

  2. The real danger is not from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but from riding, period. If you crash a hog at 70 mph, your head is only one of the body parts that will come out much worse for wear.

    I think this guy is just some kinda crank. Not all crashes occur at 70 mph, for one thing. Helmet laws, like seat belt laws, are just common sense safety measures. I may be hopelessly naïve, but I don't really judge reality by insurance payouts. And it could easily hurt other people. The motorcyclist's family, the guy who hit 'em, any number of possible relationships.

    The fastest I ever travelled on a bicycle was probably about 50 mph going down the Del Mar grade north towards Torrey Pines State Beach. Some dildohead bus driver missed me by about two feet. Unfortunately his bus was creating a shock wave of its own a little bit wider than two feet. I could have eaten shit. Probably the only thing that saved me was the gyroscopic momentum. But if I had been wearing a helmet, there is a good chance I might have survived a fall. As it was, I would have surely died.

  3. Flying Junior made a good point. A serious motorcycle injury doesn't only harm the rider.

  4. A wreck caused by someone talking on a cell phone affects others, too, but I'm not in favor of banning them. I live 20 miles from Kentucky, where helmets are not required, but I keep my helmet on when riding there, because I've sustained enough damage on bikes. I still think it should be up to the individual. Of course, I tend to like pesky things like liberty.

  5. But TB, what about all those wild young'uns who think they're gonna live forever and don't yet have the common sense and experience you do. Wouldn't some of their lives be saved by this type of government interference.