First of all, why should you be forced to ride with a helmet?
Your argument seems to be cost to "the public insurer", but I don't think that's a clear cut way to save money, it really depends on the insurance. For health/disability insurance, fatalities will be cheaper than a crippling injury over a lifetime, so from a cost perspective, it may well be best to optimize for lowest survival rate.
Comments
There are more straightforward and less costly to the public insurer ways to die than earning the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
If you're blind, you aren't allowed to drive a car. If you can't wear a helmet then why should you be allowed to ride without one?
I'm all for inclusion and respecting others' practices, but this is short-sighted.
First of all, why should you be forced to ride with a helmet?
Your argument seems to be cost to "the public insurer", but I don't think that's a clear cut way to save money, it really depends on the insurance. For health/disability insurance, fatalities will be cheaper than a crippling injury over a lifetime, so from a cost perspective, it may well be best to optimize for lowest survival rate.