Let’s pose a hypothetical question: Let’s say every single farmer decided to become a web programmer. After all, it’s their choice what to do. Does society have an interest in preventing this? Of course it does. We all have an interest in preventing behavior that puts us at risk either directly or financially.

Right... because people sometimes make choices they might regret, we must ban those choices.

What other choices should we preemptively ban “for their own good?” I suppose we could ban riding altogether since there’s plenty of fallen riders (even with a helmet) who wish they’d never taken up riding. Let’s see, what…

2/10 troll would not waste time again

I don’t owe you jack shit. I already pay for all of those things through taxes.

And if I die in a motorcycle accident, I’m no longer consuming any of the resources those taxes pay for.

So please, cut the incredibly entitled “you owe us” crap. I’ll take whatever risks I want with my own body.

Seatbelts weren’t one of the items you listed, but for the record I don’t agree with those either.

The cost of emergency services isn’t going to be much different whether the rider wears a helmet or not. Insurance is already required by law, and drivers/riders in Michigan cannot register their vehicle without it.

When I lived in Massachusetts (a helmet state) my motorcycle insurance was *half* what it was when I moved to New Hampshire (a non-helmet state where I never rode without my helmet). That “freedom” took money out of my pocket.

There’s a pretty big difference between laws designed to prevent you from harming others (everything you just listed) and laws designed to protect you from yourself (forcing riders to wear helmets).

Try again.

I don’t take that risk. And most don’t.

But it’s the rider’s choice.

Yeah let’s clear that up right now: what’s between the rider and their friends/family is just that. It has nothing to do with you, the government, or anyone else.

Sorry, but some idiots do need a nanny and living in any society in general means you have to listen to them sometimes.

He’s not talking about motorists as a collective. He’s talking about society as a collective.

Hell, if it’s okay to force people to do stuff just because their death would be bad for the economy, when their actions don’t put anyone at risk but themselves, I guess we might as well make motorcycles illegal altogether.…

For the record I don’t think people should be forced to wear seatbelts either.

But seatbelts are a little more understandable I think because if you crash without one you can become a projectile to other people in the vehicle.

That’s a very collectivist way of thinking. Ultimately, it’s not up to you whether the rider wants to risk being “taken out of the equation.”

Except for the fact that we all pay, in some way, for the dipshits who don’t wear them in increased premiums, taxes, etc.

Because many motorcyclists believe that helmets are very important for safety, and would never recommend riding without one, but also believe that it is ultimately the rider’s own choice and that it shouldn’t be forced on anyone.

Wait - the AMA’s official lobbying position is anti-helmet? WTF?

Why would whether or not they’re an organ donor be relevant? It’s their choice whether or not they want to be a donor, just like it’s their choice whether they want to wear a helmet.

Lol.

K.

Haters gonna hate.

Those two examples aren’t sold here in the states, are they?