Going into slightly darker places though, from A purely utilitarian point of view, I wonder how the math works out on cost benefit ratio here. Motorcyclists, especially non-helmet wearing ones, are a major source of viable organ donations. The increased organ supply, is an odd and morbid, if beneficial, externality of helmet law repeals[0].
The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags).
The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags).
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256