Andrew13 wrote:
The third is to reduce the cost society must bear for your actions.
This is the arguement I hear the most, and probably the easiest one to refute.
If the goal is to regulate personal behavior to reduce the costs to society, then why start with helmet laws? The number of head injured unhelmeted motorcyclists that are wards of the state, will be insignificant when you look at the costs of other types of behavior.
Without having to dredge up statistics, I think it would be safe to say that heart disease, alcohol related problems and AIDs all incure a much greater cost to society than unhelmeted motorcyclists. If you support regulation for motorcyclists, would you also support regulation on what types of foods you could eat, your consumption of alcohol or even how you conduct your sex life? Is it really up to some government entity to make all of your personal risk evaluations for you "for the good of society"?
If you live under a strict authoritarian government, like North Korea, most of your personal decisions are made for you, for the good of the state. That's not really the type of government most of us would like to live under. Personal freedom (where it does not imping on someone else's freedom) is (was) a basic tenet of our democracy in the U.S. I don't support any law that erodes that concept.
BTW - I wear a helmet about 99% of the time I ride.