However, my problem with helmets is more of practicality. If I wear a helmet, that doesn’t mitigate any risk of neck damage. Neck damage often causes paralysis, whereas open-head injuries often enough just lead to death, which is preferred to being a vegetable in my book. Oh, but wait…I guess we could all run out and by neck guards, too, right? Maybe knee pads and elbow pads too, since there’s a good chance of screwing up a joint if you wipe out. Or, maybe just a full body suit? Hmm…

I actually agree with what others have stated. The risk is mine to take, and since your ‘helmet’ solution doesn’t adequately address my concerns (accident leaving me paralyzed, car hitting me leaving me paralyzed) I see very little reason to even bother buying one, and that is *MY* choice to make — not yours.

If you choose to do idiotic, risky things on your bike and the helmet comforts you by all means use it. However, *don’t* try to force your beliefs on others. Contrary to what you believe, the universe does *not* revolve around you and your own little world, and what’s best for your situation isn’t always going to be best for the next person.

Oh, and one final thought. That helmet you wear? It’s an extra burden to have to keep track of and make sure nobody steals when you get to your destination. I prefer to travel light so I can travel fast, and that has the added benefit that when I get to my destination I can just secure the bike and be done with it just as if I’d driven in in a car

Second, contrary to urban myth, dying early of any cause (biking, cigaretttes) actually reduces cost of healthcare over-all, no matter how much is spent on the attempt to save the life. Under universal health-care, there will actually be a motivation for the government to reduce life-spans.

If you don’t wear a helmet, you increase the likelihood of serious brain injury in an accident. Should you end up permanently disabled, your medical costs will be paid for by the government for the rest of your life. Your choice to not wear a helmet is also a choice to make your fellow taxpayers assume the cost of the risks inherent in said choice.

This logic justifies the government running virtually every facet of your life. Almost every action we take has an inherent danger, and almost every action therefore has a lower-risk alternative. This does not mean the government can or should dictate the lower danger alternative.

Obviously it is better for my health to wear a helmet if I ride a bike. I lower the risk of traumatic injury substantially. That said, although anecdotal evidence of catastrophic consequences abounds, in fact the actual risk of such injury is low. (Indeed the risk declines on a per mile basis the more one rides.) It’s a low risk but God help the magazine or newspaper publisher who prints a photo of someone on a bike without a helmet. On the whole Americans assume much greater health risks every day – simply getting into their cars, eating fatty foods and in excess, not riding their bikes at all ever. These are choices, all of them – choices with profoundly adverse and expensive public health consequences. But the *debates* always seem to be about helmets. And the tone is always hostile, condescending, and sanctimonious. I’m tired of it! I wish people would quit; or spread some of that self-righteousness around a bit at least. There are plenty of equally deserving bad practices.

And then subsequent posters have appealed to the slippery slope as well. Which is fine and good in the abstract, but basically useless as an actual guiding principle in situations. Fundamentally, societal mores drive what level of risk and regulation we’re willing to put up with. It used to be we figured “well, kids working in coal mines is fine, as long as they get Sunday to rest”, whereas now we regulate air quality and working hours, even for adults. Using the “reductio ad absurdum” argument we could say, “what’s next? No one being allowed to work at all”? But we don’t, we judge each situation individually, make decisions, and sometimes use those decisions as the basis for future decisions (sometimes not). Sometimes we even change our mind and repeal poorly thought out regulations/laws. Shocker.

I think we know enough now about the consequences of head injuries (to both the rider and the society paying for their injury) involving bikes, motorcycles to reasonably mandate helmet wearing without fearing a complete takeover by some supposed nanny state.