Posted On: June 8, 2006, 3:02 pm CDT

Posted By: Live Free or Die

The assumption being made by those favoring requiring helmets is that not requiring helmets will raise the medical costs resulting from accidents. But what if the cost of an accident is less when helmets are not used? Are those who use the economic rationale to justify requiring helmets prepared to change their positions if not wearing helmets results in the same or lower costs to the government and insurance buying public? I have not seen a study on this issue (perhaps not studied by the "experts" because they suspect they will not like the outcome?) but I would guess that not wearing helmets does not result in higher costs. I hear of very few motorcycle accidents where the rider without a helmet receives a serious injury. Rather, the outcome of traveling through the air at a high speed with on no protection is often fatal. Not a pretty outcome but a rather inexpensive one in terms of medical costs.