I apologize to Bill if I misinterpreted his initial comment but his comment "I don't have too much of a problem arguing against helmet laws" implied to me that he opposed helmet laws -- i.e. supported Biker Buddy's position. I am glad to see that he, in fact, supports helmet legislation. 1. I too am skeptical of the biker argument that helmets increase medical costs. In Manitoba where I (and Ken) live we have mandatory public (non-profit) auto and bike insurance. The public insurer has strongly supported helmet legislation on the grounds that it reduces the cost of insurance to everyone. In this it has been supported most vociferously by doctors who have had to treat what they consider to be needless head injuries. Since they are either salaried doctors or paid by medicare, they have no monetary interest in supporting helmet laws. 2. The victims of head injuries are not just the bikers themselves. If you know anyone who was involved in an accident in which someome else was killed or seriously injured whether or not the accident was his/her fault, you will know the anguish and pain suffered for years and years, often for a lifetime, by the person. It is even worse when the death or serious injury could have been easily prevented by the simple act of wearing a helmet. 3. I do not buy the parallel with forcing people to eat broccoli etc or banning liquor or tobacco consumption as some have suggested to me off-list. First of all, we do try to compensate, in part, for the costs of tobacco and liquor in our health costs by "sin taxes" which are paid *only by those that indulge*. And indeed, in the case of tobacco, restrictions on its use are becoming more and more common -- e.g. at the University of Manitoba, smoking is banned in most if not all the buildings. This is true also of all government buildings and in all stores. In some Canadian cities, smoking is also banned in restaurants. Nor is this just in Canada. The alternative to helmet laws would be to charge an insurance surcharge to bikers who refuse to wear helmets but the cost of enforcement might be prohibitive, or the cost of the insurance might then be prohibitive. That still would not compensate the 'innocent victim' in 2 above. Further, driving/riding is not a necessity or a basic human right -- it is subject to certain rules -- that you have a valid drivers licence; that if you eyesight is impaired, that you wear corrective lenses; that your vehicle meets certain safety standards; that your vehicle is equipt with certain safety and environmental protection devices, etc. Helmets can be seen as just one of those safety protection devices. Ya it is not as important an issue as poverty and starvation, but it is easier and relatively costless to solve. Anyhow, this is the last I will post on this issue.
