12-03-2014, 11:24 PM
Oh, that's a bit cute. This is not a simple equation. In Australia, at least, the cost of motorcycle (and other vehicle) accidents is largely met by the taxpayer. You can argue about whether that's the way it should be, but the fact remains that it is. And that gives government some right to have a say in what people should wear.
Motorcycles offer real benefits to society: less traffic congestion, reduced greenhouse gas output, convenience for individuals at a lower cost than motor cars, etc. So there's a benefit from people riding them. But there are also costs: people are likely to suffer greater injury when they come off. And they are more likely to be involved in accidents. In counties like Australia where health costs are largely borne by the taxpayer, it is not reasonable to hold that helmets are a matter of individual choice unless people who decline to wear them are prepared to meet the full cost of the consequences of that choice.
Motorcycles offer real benefits to society: less traffic congestion, reduced greenhouse gas output, convenience for individuals at a lower cost than motor cars, etc. So there's a benefit from people riding them. But there are also costs: people are likely to suffer greater injury when they come off. And they are more likely to be involved in accidents. In counties like Australia where health costs are largely borne by the taxpayer, it is not reasonable to hold that helmets are a matter of individual choice unless people who decline to wear them are prepared to meet the full cost of the consequences of that choice.