Some time ago, while riding a motorcycle, a cyber friend of mine was hit by an uninsured, unlicensed driver who ran a red light. My friend was seriously injured. And, he was not wearing a helmet.
It might be that a helmet would have prevented some of the damage done to his head. And, it might not. A helmet might have added enough bulk for his head to have become stuck, immobilized, under the vehicle, making a spinal cord injury more likely. It could also have prevented skull fractures and 'penetrating' wounds that perhaps allowed fluid an escape route instead of 'drowning' brain cells.
My friend is lucky. And tough, too. He could have easily become what is so often referred to as a "burden" on the system. In fact, some might say that the treatment he got that allows us the continued pleasure of his company contributed to the "burden." The refrain is, "Dammit, he should have been wearing a helmet! There oughtta be a law!"
Well, there were laws. Laws that say a driver must have a license, must carry insurance, and must stop at red lights. Just how effective are laws as the cause of responsible behavior?
Seems to me those who would like to legislate or mandate specific monetary penalties on specific behaviors (taxes, or higher insurance premiums, for example) are doing some fancy dancing around some fundamental questions: What is a life worth? What is the quality of one's life worth? What is the value of a life-saving medical technique? Are such techniques worth their cost? Is every life worth saving? If not, how is that decision to be made... on the possible quality of that particular life? Who defines quality? Unfortunately, the late Ms. Schiavo's case only stepped up the tempo of the dance, instead of prompting an intermission for serious reflection.
Helmets - worn, or not worn - are a small factor compared to the increased ability of the medical profession to save lives in increasing the cost of medical care. If it's money we want to save, CPR and mechanical respiration should be primary targets for banning.
In 1984, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders, wrote that 50% of patients with severe head injuries survived at that time, up from 10% in the early 60s. They attributed this to modern emergency-room, surgical, and intensive-care treatment. Further progress in fine-tuning those skills has been made since then in all three areas, but whether the impact has been as dramatic, I do not know.
Since the early 80s, there has been a boom in the creation of institutions for the rehabilitation of some folks with head injuries, and for the life-long care of some others. Organizations devoted solely to the support of brain injured patients and their families have come about to fill a need that wasn't there 40 years ago.
Somebody's got to pay for this, because the individual that retains their earning capacity after a severe head injury is fairly rare, and few people have enough insurance to cover a lifetime of care. If we, as a society, do not want to pay for the results of increasingly effective medical technology, either through increased medical insurance costs for everyone, government programs (SSDI, Medicaid, etc.), what are the alternatives?
There isn't always a deep pocket standing around waiting to be sued, unless we do decide we'll blame the car manufacturer for the driver's folly. The tobacco and gun suits seem to have us headed in the direction of "one step removed" blame, but what will be the end result of emptying all the deep pockets?
In deciding whether helmets should be required by motorcyclists, if one uses purely financial reasoning, there's little real evidence to support any massive effort to that end. Most head injuries are sustained by passengers and drivers of cars and trucks, under conditions where a helmet would do little good. Helmets do not prevent contrecoup injuries, for example. And I haven't heard anyone suggesting helmets for everyday wear, everywhere... yet. Perhaps the delay is in waiting for a model that will monitor fat and sugar intake throughout the day, as well?
Helmets are best at preventing the most treatable, least costly injuries, and at protecting the face from cosmetic injuries. They are worthwhile and I am thrilled that my husband chooses to wear one when he rides. However, we both understand that it isn't going to prevent all head injuries, it isn't going to protect his arms and legs, and it isn't going to make those he shares the highway with better drivers.
When the cost of treatment for something that can be blamed on a behavior, a habit, a choice... can be put forth as a reason for controlling that behavior by those who don't like that particular behavior, it's far too tempting to overlook the fact that the monetary cost is caused by the ever-present availability of increased medical technology... technology that everyone wants available when they need it, regardless of why.
Imagine walking up to a total stranger on the street and saying, "I'd prefer that you not engage in any risky behavior, but if you do - wear a helmet - because if you get hurt, it might cost me money somewhere down the line."
It's rather handy for "them" to push for increased premiums for motorcyclists and gunowners and higher taxes on tobacco and fast food, since they can then fund the medical care (or teachers' salaries, in the case of Louisiana) for "everyone."
But I'm not convinced the impetus for such punishment for non-criminal behavior is wholly monetary. I think it has more to do with the simple desire of some to control the behaviors of others. Perhaps they must have conformity to feel comfortable. It is something I do not understand, but they seem to be the same people who attempt to impose "tolerance" by being intolerant.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just go ahead and pass a "Rude, Crude, and Socially Unacceptable" tax? Perhaps insurance companies could tack on an "unsophisticated surcharge?" It would certainly be more honest... and even more honest to go ahead and call it a "redneck" tax or surcharge.
. 
