Organ donor.

1. The obvious safety of the motorcycle operator and/or passenger, and

2. Protecting the State from liability. If there's a motorcycle accident, there's always an opportunity for liability by the injured and/or the deceased. Stuff like an errant, unfixed pothole or traffic issues, etc. Mandating that helmets must be worn often mitigates (lessens) the risk of injury that couldn't be avoided, and thus less money paid to plaintiffs.


The safety of motorcycles has been debated for decades. The riders are exposed to harm that is not extended to vehicles such as automobiles, vans, trucks, etc. due to being enclosed. My cousin's husband died as a result of riding his bike even though he was operating it safely. With the risk of harm being high and making the operation of the bike to be dangerous comparatively, lawmakers have addressed this issue repeatedly. They will not allow riders to "assume the risk" and go without helmets.

They need to take responsibility for themselves and not expect taxpayers to do what they refused to do.People with severe head injuries are impaired for the rest of their lives. It costs hundreds of thousands $$$ to warehouse someone in a vegetative state, or maintain someone who is permanently disabled and requires round the clock supportive care forever.