Either his insurance, if he had coverage and they couldn't find a way to drop him, or the state. However, the fact a LOT of people do dangerous things and others end up paying for all or most of their medical care should NOT be sufficient cause for society to dictate how they live their lives. That's not just a slippery slope, it's a slippery precipice leading to bans on junk food along with drugs (which of course includes drugs like nicotine and alcohol) and requiring annual physicals and regular exercise along with motorcycle helmets. Should people abstain from the former and participate in the latter? Unquestionably. Should society FORCE each member to do so simply to save itself money? Unquestionably not.

Maybe one day a majority will decide it's in societys best interest for everyone to vote Republican or become Muslim, and maybe they'll enforce that with appropriate legislation, but we won't be living in a free state anymore, we'll be slaves to popular opinion that prescribes and proscribes every facet of our very existence. After all, motorcycles are far more likely in general to be involved in accidents, and those accidents are more likely to result in serious injury when they occur, with a similar financial impact on the rest of the community, so why stop at requiring helmets when we should really just ban motorcycles entirely? For that matter, auto accidents kill tens of thousands annually and injure many more, but when two people walking bump into each other they rarely get more than a bruise, so why not ban all vehicles for the sake of the public good?

Like I said, it's hard to make a compelling case that allowing people to ride without helmets infringes on the rights of others more than requiring it infringes on theirs. Helmets restrict riders vision and hearing, so while they make accidents more survivable, they also make them more likely. Which of those risks is more desirable on balance is a judgement call, and I much prefer to leave judgement calls to the individuals directly involved than to a peripheral group likely to bear some indirect medical cost regardless. If I happen to be one of the people trapped in a burning car by a seatbelt that won't release or crushed when it rolls and my seatbelt prevented me being thrown clear, the fact that requiring them lowers societys indirect medical cost OVERALL won't be much comfort to me, and I shouldn't be required to sacrifice my life for their bottom line. My body, my life, my choice, a concept NY seems to grasp fairly well in other areas, but apparently not this one. It's hard on witnesses when a bungy jumpers cord snaps or a sky divers parachute doesn't open, too, but I don't think that reason enough to ban either, even with the extra costs their otherwise unnecessary medical care can inflict on the community. That doesn't mean I don't think both are dangerously foolish, it simply means I don't demand the right to stop everyone else from doing anything I think dangerously foolish.