Join Date: Mar 2005
Sportbike: Multistrada 1100S; CBR600RR
Years Riding: Since 2004
How you found us: CRR
Well, the well-known "pro" argument for the helmet law is that you're gonna pay for somebody's injury whether they you wear helmet or not. Motorcycle and medical insurance companies do the math and if the majority does not wear helmets, accident rates go up (yes, this is not a typo) as well as severity of injuries and understandably, so do the premiums.
In general, I'm against helmet law, since I'm pro darvinism. I also believe there should be a choice for me (I never ride without a lid) not to pay for those who do not wear helmets. Like a clause in the insurance contract saying that it is my responsibility to wear DOT-approved helmet at all times and if I crash without it, then the insurance company is free not to pay shit. Also, since everyone needs a freedom of choice there should be an option not to have this clause at the expense of paying higher premium. I dunno why don't insurance companies do that (may be they do?).