Helmet Law fought- Salt Lake plus other info

Here in Texas you don't have to wear a helmet if you can prove you have health insurance. Sort of a weird law in my opinion. Seems strange you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but you do have to wear a seat belt in a car. By the way, I am alive today because I was wearing a helmet in '94. ;)

Same thing in Daytona seat bealt law strongly enforced. No helmet on motorcycle no problem. Thats just so they can pull you over to check your car.
i've found that, almost anywhere, if ya can produce a veteran's adminstration medical system card, they don't much care what you do or don't do, so long as you're otherwise being cool 8)

but, i own and use a DOT approved helmet, cuz i'm runnng low on functioning brain-cells, i gotta protect wut i have left
I have a bunch of helmets. I wear them for everything when I am moving on wheels or snow and not inside a car. I have seen the results of not wearing a helmet from death to ending up wondering around drooling for the rest of your life. You can where one now by choice when you are out riding or in a split second you can end up wearing one around the house on doctors orders. To not wear a helmet can literally be a No Brain-er.
same I cant even go on my bike without putting on a helmet espesially after I got hit by a stupid women (no offense) who didnt have her lights on
Weren't laws supposed to protect me from others, not from myself? I see helmet and seatbelt usage as Darwinism in effect. Let the idiots die off, hopefully without reproducing first. Me, I proudly wear my seatbelt and my helmet.
It's about economics, really.

If requiring helmets reduces the number of fatalities by X, and the number of incapacitating brain injuries by X * N, the cost to society of the resultant drains on public resources in the forms of survivors benefits to your children, or disability benefits to you, or AFDC for your family is significantly lower. So, the question becomes - is societies interest in lowering the costs incurred by accidents sufficiently high to justify over riding your liberty interest in riding without a helmet.

Every analysis I've ever read says the savings are substantial; the legislatures and the courts have ruled that societies interest is of greater value than yours. In this case, I agree with them.
still torn on this issue -- crashed back in 1988 -- no helmet -- a lot of damage to my head -- one **** of a thing to put the family and ourselfs through !!! Now in Calif we have no choice -- helmets must be worn -- do I agree with this -- not to sure -- I think that there should be a age limit where helmets must be worn -- anyone under 25 wear a helmet -- 25 and over not required but must have proof of personal insurance.. Happy Riding from - Mountainman