Quote:

Helmet laws are b.s., just another twist of the statistics to make money.


Regarding helmets, I agree in principle that the decision to wear one is a personal choice. If we didn't need insurance, that would be the end of the story. But we do need insurance, so the personal choice idealism doesn't float. Suppose for a moment that you are an insurance professional whose main responsibility is to minimize company exposure by informed underwriting. Rider A lives in a helmet law jurisdiction, Rider B does not. Which rider would be viewed more favorably from a risk perspective? Now multiply that bias by the number of policies written and you can easily see how helmet momentum gains superiority. You will never successfully argue before the insurance industry that Rider B (even if he/she chooses to be in a helmet) is as "safe" as Rider A. It is this perceived risk bias that drives the insurance industry position regardless of the statistics (facts). Think about why you choose to wear a helmet . . . the insurance industry thinks similarly, except they aren't interested in your health per se in as much as they are in the costs of recovering it.

Are the helmet manufacturers neutral on this issue? Does their position protect their bottom line?

Speaking of choice, why don't people complain about the sidestand-starter interlock on bikes? Shouldn't it be our decision to risk pole vaulting ourselves with the sidestand down?

Here in PA, why is it that anyone with a driver's license can obtain a permit to operate a motorcycle for a year without any bike-specific training and supervised experience? That to me is a very risky choice allowed by law that is far worse than arguing over mandated helmet laws. I can only guess that since the bike-auto collision almost always favors the auto, it doesn't gain the attention of legislators.