The more health costs become collective, the easier it is to justify laws that require people to protect themselves. You must wear seatbelts, you can't drink soda, you can't smoke, etc., because of the social costs involved. That's the argument. Requiring cyclists and skateboarders to wear helmets is part of the same effort to save money. But in this case, the economic concern is that the town doesn't have the resources to enforce the law. Enforcing the law includes having enough cops on the street to hassle riders for not wearing a helmet. The town's insurance company claims that if the town can't properly educate the populous about the law (i.e. enforce the law) the town is potentially negligent if someone not wearing a helmet gets hurt. How absurd is that? If this is accurate, governments are responsible for any harm done by a person breaking a law. By passing a law, according to the argument, governments have the legal responsibility to ensure the laws aren't broken - and can be held liable if they are. While I'm not a lawyer, I'm calling total BS on this insurance company. And if they're right, we're all screwed.