I’m sure this has been beaten to death, and I can’t add anything that hasn’t been said before. Also, like religion and politics, I don't expect to convince anyone holding other views, but I’ll jump in anyway.
First off, the only reason that there is a nationwide seatbelt law is because the insurance industry lobbied the federal government to blackmail the states to either pass seatbelt laws or lose their federal highway funds. If there were as many bikes on the road as cars, I’m sure that our insurance friends would pressure the feds for helmet laws. Basically, just a money issue.
But this is not the main issue, of course. The main issue is, who is responsible for your well-being, you or the State? I believe that you are primarily responsible for your own well-being. However, in certain cases, the stakes are high enough or there are other factors which justify having the State override the individual’s right to self-determination. For example, I see no problem with laws requiring child-restraints or seatbelt laws for minors in automobiles. This might appear to conflict with parents’ rights, but in actuality parents do not have the right to endanger their children, and if they are too ignorant to protect their children properly, then the State must step in. This does not interfere with the childrens’ rights, as they do not have freedom of choice until they become adults. In my opinion, there must be very compelling reasons for the State to step in and enforce its judgment over yours. The “cost to society” argument is often put forth as justification, generally stated as all or some combination of medical costs, long term care costs, or cost of the lost contribution to society that the injured/killed person would have otherwise made. Sounds reasonable, except since when does “society” have a right to my services? If I have no medical insurance and society chooses to care for me after I hurt myself, does that give society the right to dictate my behavior? If I have insurance, and by using that insurance for care after an accident I increase medical costs for society in general, does that give society the right to dictate my behavior? If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, who gets to decide which behaviors are acceptable? To you, it is reasonable to require motorcyclists to wear helmets. To the non-motorcycling majority, it would make more sense to ban motorcycles altogether. They really serve no use that could not be served by an automobile. If you play the gas-mileage card, I’ll just say that a) is the difference between 20 mpg and 40 mpg worth the cost to society of all of the unnecessary motorcycle deaths and injuries and b) a large percentage of motorcycle riding is non-essential travel anyway. Like it or not, you cannot legislate intelligence or responsibility. Unless some behavior is likely to lead to harm to someone else, society really has no right to exert any control. We do all live in a society in which we all depend on one another, but again, this does not give society the right to dictate individual behavior. I won’t claim a “slippery slope” argument or argue that it is inevitable, but if you believe that the societal costs justify helmet and/or seatbelt laws, then it would be logically consistent for the State (acting on behalf of society) to: ban alcohol – the negative health and other consequences of alcohol abuse are well known; ban any activity with a physical risk beyond strolling through the park; require citizens to engage in a State-approved low-risk exercise program; require everyone to get at least 8 hours of sleep every night; require restaurants to serve only State-approved low-fat, low-calorie meals of proper portion size; ration cookies, doughnuts, chips, and all manner of other “useless” foods; identify each person’s best use to society in terms of career and require that they follow that career. I could go on, but you get the picture. These may sound extreme, but please tell me how they are inconsistent with the idea of “cost to society” argument in favor of helmet laws. Personally, I like a statement that I read somewhere on the internet, I don’t recall where or who said it - “Freedom is dangerous. You can either accept the risks that come with it or eventually lose it all step-by-step. Each step will be justified by its proponents as a minor inconvenience that will help make us all “safer.” Personally, I’d rather have a slightly more dangerous world that respects freedom more.”
I have never ridden without a helmet (full-face) and never will, and I used my seatbelt before seatbelt laws. I do both because in my judgment it would be stupid to not do so. If you think differently and don’t care to wear a helmet or use a seatbelt, that’s your business, not mine. (I also have no problem with requiring riders under 18 and novice riders to wear a helmet, and requiring riders to take the MSF course before they get their license. Those are relatively minor and short-lived intrusions of the State’s judgment.)
Not sure if I should post this, but oh well, here goes….
