True, helmets save lives. Also true is that they take a few more than they save.
The real reason behind insurance companies back helmet legislation? CA is a typical case. When the helmet law went in, new bike registrations dropped some 38%. Number of miles ridden dropped over 50%. Lots of long time riders left the state, the group who typically have the fewest accidents. Motorcycle deaths went down some 25%, and the CHP carried on as if the larger reduction in miles ridden didn't make that a net increase in deaths per mile. A study sponsored by the MMA (and quickly hidden by the gvt) also showed there was a slight increase in deaths per accident. The insurance companies know very well that lid or no lid doesn't make a whole lot of difference overall. They also know that a lot of people will ride less if at all, depriving their idiot cage driving customers of very expensive targets. In the long run, the insiurance companies want you to die in a crash, it is often cheaper than rebuilding survivors.
Sure, there are individuals here and there who were in the right circumstances that their lid saver their arse. Unfortunately, there are a few more there and here that would have faired better without. In all, the difference is slight, but real and it favours not wearing a lid. It varies from year to year, but it us usually around a 4% greater chance that you will be in a crash if you wear a lid, and around a 3% greater chance you will either die or be paralysed.
