Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
Of course it is a fool's question. It's a thought experiment. But just because I am examining the cost of forgoing a helmet doesn't mean I have to simultaneously examine all other costs in the world just to be, I dunno, fair or something.
To determine the cost doesn't require looking at anything else. However data without context is useless. So if there's an intent to say that unhelmeted cyclists should make society whole for their impact (no pun), then you'd have to justify why they should be singled out as a class, while all the others go for free. Following the logic you should also give credit for the fact that they're a cyclist in the first place, because when all is said and done, cyclists (including those not wearing helmets) live longer healthier lives, and have lower medical costs overall.
So far the only group that's been singled out and made to pay for their increased cost impact are smokers, and let's not kid ourselves, the states have snagged that money and used it in the general fund.
So you have 4 hurdles
1- the need to rationalize that people should be made to pay for the externalities
2- which classes would be tracked this way
3- some actuarial formula or method for calculating and allocating those costs
4- deciding whether it's good or rational social policy to begin with.
However, as a healthy person, I wouldn't mind implementing some kind of "you pay for your stupidity and I'll pay for mine" policy, because as I said earlier, cyclists come out ahead even without helmets. The rebate I'd be entitled to from the general health ins. pool would be very sufficient to buy separate accident/injury coverage, and I'd have change in my pocket.