The civility and rhetoric comment was not directed at you, but to the whole thread. Here's the point on costs . . . You can't pick one incident and say it costs more. If all else is equal and accident happens to two riders, one wearing a helmet and the other not, the helmetless rider may be more likely to die while the helmeted rider sustains a life altering disability. In that case, the cost may be significantly higher for the helmeted rider. Again, one example doesn't prove the point. Until an actual cost to society can be shown, as a whole, that helmeted riders riders actually cost less money, the cost argument is based on assumptions that may not be true. I am in no way saying riding without a helmet is safer. But I am not convinced that riding without a helmet actually costs society more since the higher fatality rates my actually offset costs. I don't know that, but nobody seems to have any concrete data. Even if we did have that data and it did show increased costs, the next question is: "How much is that freedom worth?" Reasonable people will differ on that. I am willing to pay a nominal amount for others to enjoy that freedom (even though I do not intend to ride without a helmet). Others may not be willing to pay anything and others may be willing to pay a lot. How can there possibly be an objectively right or wrong answer to that? Requiring riders to wear a helmet is hardly a major government intrusion. But if allowing others to live their life as they please costs you pennies, that is hardly an intrusion either.