Not that all $1200 of those dollars would be yours of course, and not that wearing a helmet magically makes a biker impervious to harm; like I said to Ave, if a biker wrecks he's probably in for a rough time helmet or no unless he's not going very fast so, more than with any other small quick vehicle, the bikers best hope is to avoid accidents, not simply try to survive them. NTSA could also tell you that motorcycles are more likely to be involved in accidents than other vehicles (which is yet another reason not to force them to wear something that impairs hearing and vision). What are the stats on bikers whose legs were broken after they changed lanes into a pickup they didn't see because their helmet destroyed their peripheral vision?, why not cut to the chase and ban them all? Why not cut to the chase and ban them all? That's a more sensible position; I still wouldn't support it, but there's a reason I wouldn't ride a bike if you paid me. Again, riding with a helmet is like smoking with a filter, except that the latter is still legal, at least for the present.

But the bottom line is that anyone who feels helmets make them safer or reduce the seriousness of their potential injuries should by all means wear one. That's not the issue here, nor is whether bikes themselves are inherently more dangerous. The issue is whether people should be forced to do something that impairs their ability to avoid accidents (not just their enjoyment) simply to reduce the potential cost to others if/when the consequently more likely accident occurs. Since the vast majority of the risk, and all of the immediate risk, is theirs, I think it's their call.