From a purely law-enforcement standpoint, what is the logic behind laws that allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets (some states, not all), while other laws require vehicle drivers to wear a seatbelt, particularly if they are alone in their vehicle?

Question

Ida-Louise · Accepted Answer

Neither should be controlled by the state. However, through misrepresentation of the facts and some actual facts, the people were convinced that wearing seatbelts is a good thing, and as such, the people who like to tell everyone else what to do were met with less resistance. Further, those same people drive as well. Helmets, however, remove the wonderful feeling of the wind gushing at your face while riding, and was met with much more resistance. Further, the people who like to tell everyone else what to do do not usually ride motorcycles.

Ceylin · Answer

Helmet laws, or the lack their of can often be economically motivated rather than have anything to do with safety. As an example, Myrtle Beach enacted a helmet law, the major rallies avoided Myrtle Beach and the local businesses lobbied hard because they lost millions. The helmet law was repealed before the start of the next season. Naturally, that summer more people died because they didn't wear helmets.

Margetta · Answer

The helmet just preserves the rider's face well enough so the coroners can identify the body

Thorn · Answer

It is all about lobbying in each state. Insurance companies know that a car occupant with a seat belt, in a bad accident, will sustain less expensive injuries than one without a seat belt.

Almire · Answer

Less helmets, less jackasses breaking the speed limit and endangering others with their reckless driving

From a purely law-enforcement standpoint, what is the logic behind laws that allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets (some states, not all), while other laws require vehicle drivers to wear a seatbelt, particularly if they are alone in their vehicle?

Blue Bird

Codee

Corliss

Dosi

Gunvor

Jerrie

Kate

Lauri

Lindsy

Loise