[widebody911]

Originally posted by john_cramer
The problem is, he doesn't have any. So which is it, do we limit the capacity for the exercise of freedom for everyone because of his individual irresponsibility, let him die, or keep him as a ward of the state?

It's like a large tree in the middle of the road; if the tree was always there, everyone knows to go around it, and few if any people run into it. If there was no tree, and you put one there in the middle of the night, people will hit it. People were not willing to accept the consequences of not riding without helmets, and various entities got tired of paying for it, so they were mandated. I guess nobody had the political 'balls' to stand up and say "fine, you can ride without a helmet, but if you crash/get run over, we're not covering head injuries."

The next problem I see with this line of thinking is that insurance companies will take it a step further: "fine, if you want to ride a motorcycle, which is inherently dangerous, we're not covering you." eventually escalating to the silly 'unless you drive an APC/SUV, we're not covering you...