Like the old debate over whether it's better to be thrown clear of an accident or strapped in by a seat belt so you aren't injured by the collision itself. IN GENERAL, the odds favor the latter, but I don't think it's right for one group, even if it happens to be a minority, to make that decision for others. If I or a loved one happened to be one of those people trapped in a burning car when a seatbelt clasp was crushed or crushed under a vehicle when the impact would have thrown me into a nearby meadow you'll never convince me that my dad or kids life was worth the STATISTICAL benefit to society at large. Decisions like that are judgement calls, and since most of the immediate consequences, and nearly all the most severe ones, will be born by the individual directly involved, I think it should be their call.

You can't tell me that a biker with his eyes behind a visor and his ears tucked in a helmet has as much road awareness as a bareheaded one, and the smaller and quicker the vehicle the easier it becomes to avoid accidents than survive them. When a biker wrecks, unless he's going pretty slow his ability to surf is often more important than the thickest jacket or helmet in the world. Stuff like that is why you'll never catch me on a bike; riding with a helmet is like smoking with a filter--except one of them is still legal (for now... ). If a biker prefers the added protection of a helmet, more power to him/her, with my blessing--but if, as a lot of them do, he finds my logic more compelling that should also be fine. There are risks either way, just different ones; the only thing they have in common is that the greatest ones are born by the biker, so that's who should decide which ones are more acceptable.