Florida Forces all Riders under 21 to have Under 21 plates

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

Sorry we are smarter than you and want to get rid of the helmet-less knuckle heads increasing our insurance or causing extra hospital bills sent to taxpayers.

Not really as I know a bunch of riders in FL are over 21 and don't have
A. medical insurance
B. helmets
C. Age dose not mater for skill level or how they ride.
Sorry this is a pathetic reason to try and say why they have this law in FL. If it was to keep cost down they make a law requiring them no matter what. I don't see how the road is going to care when your face hits it if your 18 or 45

[Runeknight95]

Originally Posted by fishdip

Not really as I know a bunch of riders in FL are over 21 and don't have
A. medical insurance
B. helmets
C. Age dose not mater for skill level or how they ride.
Sorry this is a pathetic reason to try and say why they have this law in FL. If it was to keep cost down they make a law requiring them no matter what. I don't see how the road is going to care when your face hits it if your 18 or 45

You're right the ground does not care how cool you looked while its cheese grading your face!

But the 21 thing gives time for kids to mature before they make the decision to ride without a helmet

And those people you "know" are breaking the law

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

You're right the ground does not care how cool you looked while its cheese grading your face!

But the 21 thing gives time for kids to mature before they make the decision to ride without a helmet

And those people you "know" are breaking the law

See the interesting thing tho is the age 21 think about all the maturing they do tell that magic number comes along and they can now go out to a bar and get drunk and ride with no helmet. If and only if I was going to support this law it be a better age like 25 as that gives a little bit of time for them to pass the party stage of life.

[Runeknight95]

Originally Posted by fishdip

See the interesting thing tho is the age 21 think about all the maturing they do tell that magic number comes along and they can now go out to a bar and get drunk and ride with no helmet. If and only if I was going to support this law it be a better age like 25 as that gives a little bit of time for them to pass the party stage of life.

Beats me too man beats me

[Liquidtoon]

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

Says who? a cop can stop you for anything and make sure you're following the rules

Not true, they still need a reason for the stop. Sure they can lie but if your going on the legal system they need to see a violation before the stop.

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

It does make sense and it is the reason. Just because it doesn't exist maybe it should, if you're 16 you're not allowed to be out past a certain time etc so if a cop saw a car with an 18 under plate driving around at 3 am, but in reality most cars driven by 16 year olds are owned by older adults.

The point being that laws that discriminate against any group are immoral. Your married if you die on a bike you make use the tax payers responsible for your family, please sell your bike or better yet lets just impound it and auction it off for you.

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

Sorry we are smarter than you and want to get rid of the helmet-less knuckle heads increasing our insurance or causing extra hospital bills sent to taxpayers.

First off your not smarter, your arrogant but none the less. The medical cost of you surviving and accident is far more than your death benefits so really you jerks hanging on to life are dragging the rest of us down...

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

No you'd get pulled over and go here's my license oh you're over 21 have a nice day see ya. Durrrrrrr!
If your son was on your bike riding without a helmet, and got pulled over for something else and didn't have his helmet on, they'd know then.
So yes it would be an inconvenience but you wouldn't get in trouble.

The point is that the law does not fix the problem and the ever rising issues of abuse of authority from police every stop is a risk I dont want myself or future children in.

More over this goes to a root issue of the government enforcing this I know whats better for you than you do attitude. I have the right to choose how much risk I am willing to accept. If this is affecting your insurance then the problem is the insurance system not my right to freedom. My age is irrelevant to my freedom, once I became an adult the choice was mine. Sure I might make poor choices but they are mine to make.

[Joshorilla]

Blah blah blah bullshit helmet laws, blah blah blah government takin' way ma freederm! Blah blah blah descrimination! Blah blah blah personal choices! Blah blah blah.

You lot don't half whinge.

Man up.

[n4mwd]

The helmet law in FL is not the same thing as the under 21 tag law. However, it does seem to be a sneaky way to enforce the under 21 helmet law. But its more like making younger people carry a sign that says "Hey cops, come and pick on me." The under 21 law is a secondary offense so they can't stop you because you "look" young.

But when the cops aren't looking, a squid is a squid and isn't going to change because of a sign.

Also, in FL its illegal to have dark tinted windows on your car because cops want to be able to see what you are doing and what you look like. But its perfectly legal in all 50 states AFAIK for a biker to go ATGATT and be covered from head to toe - thus preventing a cop from making a positive ID. So when someone is ATGATT, the cops have a harder time telling age - but the point is, they shouldn't need to know that in the first place.

One thing for sure is that I see a lot more guys in the 40+ group going helmetless than I do in the 21-30 group. There aren't that many guys 25-35 out there at all because of wives and girlfriends demanding that they sell the bike and buy a minivan for the kids.

[nautica]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Also, in FL its illegal to have dark tinted windows on your car because cops want to be able to see what you are doing and what you look like. But its perfectly legal in all 50 states AFAIK for a biker to go ATGATT and be covered from head to toe - thus preventing a cop from making a positive ID. So when someone is ATGATT, the cops have a harder time telling age - but the point is, they shouldn't need to know that in the first place.

Tint is more for the protection of officers during a traffic stop, not exactly for proper identification. But then one could argue why pull over a tinted vehicle for the purpose of giving them a ticket for tint and risk officer safety?


As for the FL law, it seems like another way for the state to make revenue. Does Florida require a helmet for riders with less than a year of having their motorcycle endorsement no matter what age?

[choneofakind]

@n4mwd, on the tint vs ATGATT thoughts:

I think the the tint law is more to allow officers to see the actions (reaching for weapon, hiding something, acting generally funny) of the driver. The difference between a car with tinted windows and a rider in a full suit/gloves/boots/helmet is that you can see the actions of the rider very clearly. You're going to see if he/she's fidgeting/hiding something/reaching for something.

But you are right, it's very hard to tell the age/gender/race/build of a rider in full gear. That's why I've been pulled over: I was riding home one night and a local (very proffesional and respectful I might add) officer pulled me over to check on my license status. Riding at night is not allowed in OH with a temporary permit, and since I was an obviously brand new rider (still wobbly at lights ) he pulled me over to chat and remind me that riders with their temps aren't supposed to be riding at night. Once he saw that I had an actual M endorsement, it was a non-issue and we chatted for a minute in the parking lot where I pulled into. Now, my local officers all recognize me and wave/chat when they see me.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by nautica

As for the FL law, it seems like another way for the state to make revenue. Does Florida require a helmet for riders with less than a year of having their motorcycle endorsement no matter what age?

no, a 90 year old can go right out and ride right after taking the course.

Originally Posted by choneofakind

@n4mwd, on the tint vs ATGATT thoughts:

I think the the tint law is more to allow officers to see the actions (reaching for weapon, hiding something, acting generally funny) of the driver. The difference between a car with tinted windows and a rider in a full suit/gloves/boots/helmet is that you can see the actions of the rider very clearly. You're going to see if he/she's fidgeting/hiding something/reaching for something.

But you are right, it's very hard to tell the age/gender/race/build of a rider in full gear. That's why I've been pulled over: I was riding home one night and a local (very proffesional and respectful I might add) officer pulled me over to check on my license status. Riding at night is not allowed in OH with a temporary permit, and since I was an obviously brand new rider (still wobbly at lights ) he pulled me over to chat and remind me that riders with their temps aren't supposed to be riding at night. Once he saw that I had an actual M endorsement, it was a non-issue and we chatted for a minute in the parking lot where I pulled into. Now, my local officers all recognize me and wave/chat when they see me.

I've had off duty cops lecture me about the evils of having a motorcycle that is too quiet.

[choneofakind]

^^ I love when people try and convince me that my bike is too quiet, even with a full exhaust system.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Runeknight95

Beat me man, beat me

?

Originally Posted by n4mwd

The helmet law in FL is not the same thing as the under 21 tag law. However, it does seem to be a sneaky way to enforce the under 21 helmet law. But its more like making younger people carry a sign that says "Hey cops, come and pick on me." The under 21 law is a secondary offense so they can't stop you because you "look" young.

But when the cops aren't looking, a squid is a squid and isn't going to change because of a sign.

Also, in FL its illegal to have dark tinted windows on your car because cops want to be able to see what you are doing and what you look like.

The under 21 plate came about when FL revised the helmet law.

As far as tint; police cars have blacked out windows, does this mean they are all breaking the law?

[min nin]

When I registered my bike in florida, I wae told I needed insurance or a helmet to purchase plates.Auto plates require proof of insurance. The laws here are strange.
Under 21 requites helmet, if you are on a bike with these plates,and no helmet, youwill get pulled over. If under 21 you loose your bike licence. They do this to keep kids from killing them selves while they arelearning how to ride.
If old people kill them selves before they learn how to ride, too bad.
Thats just how florida does it.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by min nin

When I registered my bike in florida, I wae told I needed insurance or a helmet to purchase plates.Auto plates require proof of insurance. The laws here are strange.
Under 21 requites helmet, if you are on a bike with these plates,and no helmet, youwill get pulled over. If under 21 you loose your bike licence. They do this to keep kids from killing them selves while they arelearning how to ride.
If old people kill them selves before they learn how to ride, too bad.
Thats just how florida does it.

We're just trying to thin the herd before Obamacare kicks in.

[JBizzle]

I live in Florida, have an Under 21 tag and could really care less about it. I've been pulled over on several occasions, none of which were for my Under 21 tag and was never hassled about my age just the typical "You were doing 6mph over the posted limit, watch your speed, have a good night"

I think that the helmet law here is absurd though. You're allowed to not wear a helmet if you have $10,000 in medical coverage. What is $10,000 going to do for someone with a traumatic head injury? Probably cover the ambulance ride and that's about it, EMS helicopter rides are $30k...

[n4mwd]

Helmets are a good safety tool, but don't delude yourself into thinking you can't be hurt or killed while wearing one. If you hit your helmet at a speed greater than 15 mph, you're going to have a brain injury. So don't do that.

But reading between the lines, they seem to have stopped you because you had an under 21 tag. If he knew for a fact (assuming he had some kind of radar) that you were doing exactly 6 mph over the limit, then its really unusual for him to stop you at all. In FL, you are allowed 5 mph before they can give you a ticket. And the radar has an error of +/- 1-2 mph. So basically, whether you realized it or not, the cop was picking on you.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Helmets are a good safety tool, but don't delude yourself into thinking you can't be hurt or killed while wearing one. If you hit your helmet at a speed greater than 15 mph, you're going to have a brain injury. So don't do that.

But reading between the lines, they seem to have stopped you because you had an under 21 tag. If he knew for a fact (assuming he had some kind of radar) that you were doing exactly 6 mph over the limit, then its really unusual for him to stop you at all. In FL, you are allowed 5 mph before they can give you a ticket. And the radar has an error of +/- 1-2 mph. So basically, whether you realized it or not, the cop was picking on you.

[JustRidin]

I entirely disagree with pointing out the age of a rider on their plate as I think it will draw undue attention by police and regular people. As far as the helmet thing goes though, I don't care if you are 18, 19, 29 or 70, wear a damn helmet. Who cares if the law says you need to or not. It's your head though.

[lgk]

why are we even treating an 18yr old as a kid.
they should be able to handle themselves just fine.

they need more responsibility not less.

[n4mwd]

Good point. If a guy is old enough to vote and old enough to serve in the military, then he should be old enough to ride a motorcycle without being singled out for being younger.

[This Girl Rides]

Seen the tint comment in here;
Just an FYI; I have lived in FL my whole life..and since I was 16 have been running limo tint on my vehicles.

Have been pulled over, have been in traffic checks, sobriety checks, ect...and never once got hassled for my limo tint.



Maybe because i'm a lil white girl in a Scion?
Something tells me they would be more concerned with the 6'4" thug in a jacked up cadillac on 24"s lol

[HKr1]

Originally Posted by ai4px

So.... I own three motorcycles and let my teen son or daughter ride any one of my bikes. What does this law accomplish? Or my son owns a bike and I ride it with no helmet. The law is about the driver/rider not the vehicle. Nuts.

Makes me think of the handicap plates, when those cars are driven by a different person. You know where they park! Its the person not the car thats handicapped.

[Joshorilla]

Originally Posted by JBizzle

I live in Florida, have an Under 21 tag and could really care less about it.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Good point. If a guy is old enough to vote and old enough to serve in the military, then he should be old enough to ride a motorcycle without being singled out for being younger.

i have seen 18yr old run a business, operate 2 million dollar equipment, be directly responsible for 100s of lives, Race motorcycles/cars professionally, sail around the world, build airplanes, design bridges, carry a gun, and provide medical treatment.

the law doesn't benefit society or the individual.
it just makes the government into a nanny for the underdeveloped adults it creates.

the difference between me and your lawmakers is i see great potential in young adults, while they gave up and made a padded room constructed with BS laws...

[Trubin]

Originally Posted by lgk

i have seen 18yr old run a business, operate 2 million dollar equipment, be directly responsible for 100s of lives, Race motorcycles/cars professionally, sail around the world, build airplanes, design bridges, carry a gun, and provide medical treatment.

the law doesn't benefit society or the individual.
it just makes the government into a nanny for the underdeveloped adults it creates.

the difference between me and your lawmakers is i see great potential in young adults, while they gave up and made a padded room constructed with BS laws...

Might as well then have special "Under 21" uniforms in the Military.

[Panda]

@lgk RE: Nanny state? You could argue that it's not the government creating these nanny state laws it's a permissive parenting attitude, the lack of basic responsibilities, and dearth of civic awareness, and the misguided sense of self entitlement that American's feel is their right today

Helmet laws are a great example of this.

1. Some people claim it's a personal "right" to not wear a helmet.
2. Riders without helmets cost the state/taxpayer more money than helmeted riders when they crash.
3. State creates law making to A.) Save lives B.) Reduce the financial burden on the taxpayers.
4. People claim their rights are being infringed and lament the creation of "nanny" laws.

People can exercise their "right" not to wear helmets all they want. But these same people should pay more not to wear a helmet because everyone bears the burden (taxpayers and riders in the form of higher insurance premiums).

How is that fair?

[Trubin]

Originally Posted by Panda

@lgk RE: Nanny state? You could argue that it's not the government creating these nanny state laws it's a permissive parenting attitude, the lack of basic responsibilities, and dearth of civic awareness, and the misguided sense of self entitlement that American's feel is their right today

Helmet laws are a great example of this.

1. Some people claim it's a personal "right" to not wear a helmet.
2. Riders without helmets cost the state/taxpayer more money than helmeted riders when they crash.
3. State creates law making to A.) Save lives B.) Reduce the financial burden on the taxpayers.
4. People claim their rights are being infringed and lament the creation of "nanny" laws.

People can exercise their "right" not to wear helmets all they want. But these same people should pay more not to wear a helmet because everyone bears the burden (taxpayers and riders in the form of higher insurance premiums).

How is that fair?

Yea, but with these nanny laws stupid people don't get weeded out anymore.

[n4mwd]

#2 isn't really true. Its propaganda. Bikers tend to have just as much or more private insurance coverage as other people. So they are paying their own way. And in many cases, its the guy that pulled out in front of them that actually pays.

If they crash, it can be expensive with or without a helmet. And in many cases, cheaper without, because a biker without a helmet has a greater chance of being killed, and as such, has less, not more, medical expenses. If you look at some "fortified" statistics, you'll see that bikers who experience "Traumatic Brain Injuries" or "TBI's" have big bills, but again, that is a concentrated statistic because it doesn't take the number of bikers who never made it to the hospital into account.

So helmets are something everyone should wear, but not wearing one doesn't really cost anybody else anything. If the government really wants to do something stupid to protect bikers from injuries, then they should ban all cars and trucks from the road. That would save a lot more lives than a helmet law.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Panda

@lgk RE: Nanny state? You could argue that it's not the government creating these nanny state laws it's a permissive parenting attitude, the lack of basic responsibilities, and dearth of civic awareness, and the misguided sense of self entitlement that American's feel is their right today

i think its cancerous, the government creates these laws but all it does is make people even less responsible.

theres no self correction, and culling of unrealistic poorly cultivated people.

Originally Posted by Panda

1. Some people claim it's a personal "right" to not wear a helmet.

imo, thats a personal choice.
i wouldn't want to risk living like a vegetable, but they are welcome to.

Originally Posted by Panda

2. Riders without helmets cost the state/taxpayer more money than helmeted riders when they crash.

who says the state/ins co. has to pay anything.
the ins co. could put helmets as a requirement to be covered, since they control the policy and payout.

Originally Posted by Panda

3. State creates law making to A.) Save lives B.) Reduce the financial burden on the taxpayers.

they shouldn't be doing anything of the sort.
they should just let people take pictures of dodos and meet Darwin.

Originally Posted by Panda

4. People claim their rights are being infringed and lament the creation of "nanny" laws.

just let people control their own lives, a big part of being a free man is making your own decisions. even if they are bad.

Originally Posted by Panda

these same people should pay more not to wear a helmet because everyone bears the burden (taxpayers and riders in the form of higher insurance premiums).

thats for the insurance co. to decide not the govt.
whether or not they decide to make discounts or cover somebody who habitually rides helmetless is purely up to them.

Originally Posted by Panda

How is that fair?

sorry, but you should know that life isn't fair...

[Solunatic]

Hm. I'll just add this to the list of reasons why i'll never live in Florida.

[Panda]

@lgk - http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p...ike/costs.html

Helmet Laws Reduce Public Payout Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources.

Letting people exercise what they think of as a right costs taxpayers and me as a rider more money. There is a shared cost because they don't want to wear a helmet.

My point is if you don't want to wear a helmet fine. But then my health insurance, vehicle insurance, or taxes shouldn't be impacted.

@Trubin - It's not about "weeding" people out or some misguided understanding of Darwinism. This is a morbid idea but assuming that riding without a helmet is a function of intelligence (it's not, but intelligence is easier to quantify than judgement versus risk versus whatever else). To raise the average IQ of the world to 110. You'd have to cull 2 billion of the least intelligent people. A handful of helmetless riders needlessly dying is mathematically meaningless.

[JBizzle]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

#2 isn't really true. Its propaganda. Bikers tend to have just as much or more private insurance coverage as other people. So they are paying their own way. And in many cases, its the guy that pulled out in front of them that actually pays.

If they crash, it can be expensive with or without a helmet. And in many cases, cheaper without, because a biker without a helmet has a greater chance of being killed, and as such, has less, not more, medical expenses. If you look at some "fortified" statistics, you'll see that bikers who experience "Traumatic Brain Injuries" or "TBI's" have big bills, but again, that is a concentrated statistic because it doesn't take the number of bikers who never made it to the hospital into account.

So helmets are something everyone should wear, but not wearing one doesn't really cost anybody else anything. If the government really wants to do something stupid to protect bikers from injuries, then they should ban all cars and trucks from the road. That would save a lot more lives than a helmet law.

I understand that most people don't carry the bare minimum, and that most vehicles who could potentially hit bikers don't carry the bare minimum either, keyword being most. The law shouldn't be written at "carry $10,000 if you don't want to wear a helmet" because there are lots of people out there who will carry just the bare minimum. I got in a car accident a while ago and the person at fault had the bare minimum required by the state ($10,000 go figure) and without my uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage I'd be ****ed. I think @Jiggles knows a thing or two about insurance

Originally Posted by Joshorilla

Link to original page on YouTube.

This had me laughing, note taken

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Panda

@lgk - http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p...ike/costs.html

Letting people exercise what they think of as a right costs taxpayers and me as a rider more money. There is a shared cost because they don't want to wear a helmet.

My point is if you don't want to wear a helmet fine. But then my health insurance, vehicle insurance, or taxes shouldn't be impacted.

like i said, if the government got out of medical, people would be more responsible.

the helmetless rider/ins co. would pay for his own medical treatment, if the ins co. got tired of payout then they would quit covering them along with medical /life ins., then the rider himself would decide if the cost was acceptable.

the cost, wouldn't impact you at all, it would be borne/die with the individual.
as it should be.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by lgk

the helmetless rider/ins co. would pay for his own medical treatment, if the ins co. got tired of payout then they would quit covering them along with medical /life ins., then the rider himself would decide if the cost was acceptable.

the cost, wouldn't impact you at all, it would be borne/die with the individual.
as it should be.

Except that's not the way it works now. I bear the burden as a helmeted rider with insurance and a taxpayer in the form of increased taxes and higher insurance premiums.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Helmets are a good safety tool, but don't delude yourself into thinking you can't be hurt or killed while wearing one. If you hit your helmet at a speed greater than 15 mph, you're going to have a brain injury. So don't do that.

But reading between the lines, they seem to have stopped you because you had an under 21 tag. If he knew for a fact (assuming he had some kind of radar) that you were doing exactly 6 mph over the limit, then its really unusual for him to stop you at all. In FL, you are allowed 5 mph before they can give you a ticket. And the radar has an error of +/- 1-2 mph. So basically, whether you realized it or not, the cop was picking on you.

As demonstrated at many tracks around the world.

[Trubin]

Originally Posted by lgk

like i said, if the government got out of medical, people would be more responsible.

the helmetless rider/ins co. would pay for his own medical treatment, if the ins co. got tired of payout then they would quit covering them along with medical /life ins., then the rider himself would decide if the cost was acceptable.

the cost, wouldn't impact you at all, it would be borne/die with the individual.
as it should be.

I'm sure there was another study just like this one that stated that smoking and smoking related illness cost taxpayers money should smoking be banned across all states? That unhealthy diet and lack of exercise cost taxpayers money. Should we petition for laws to make fast food and junk-food illegal? Maybe going to the gym once a week should mandatory as well? Or even outlaw anything bigger then a 16oz of soda.

My point is, Let us have a choice, let us have freedom. Everyone chooses his/her own level of risk. There will always be some sort of unhealthy behavior that will cost taxpayers money.

[Trubin]

^Sorry I meant to quote panda and the Link of the California study^

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Trubin

^Sorry I meant to quote panda and the Link of the California study^

Hiding selfish behavior under the aegis of personal liberty is disingenuous at best.

It cost money out of my pocket for somebody else to engage in a behavior that I don't approve of, condone, or agree with. That's almost the exact opposite of freedom.

Smokers pay for their decision to smoke by commensurate taxes per pack and higher insurance premiums.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

As demonstrated at many tracks around the world.

Yes, its part of the DOT helmet standard. Under 15 mph = "protected" and over 15mph = "Not protected" - from direct impacts. In reality, a helmet reduces the effective impact speed by about 15mph. And that is still better than no reduction at all.

Someone who low sides on the track is only experiencing about a 10 mph impact regardless of the speed of the bike. Thats the vertical speed, not the horizontal speed. But if they plow into a brick wall at 45 mph, they are probably dead meat - with or without a helmet.

Where a helmet really protects the most is from abrasive injuries. So a guy at the track can fall off his bike at 150 mph and not have a single scratch on his head.

But in terms of medical costs, the TBI is the biggest thing. That said, the more serious TBI's are obtained at speeds greater than 15 mph. So wearing a helmet really doesn't make you that much less of a risk for a TBI.

So if you just fall off your bike and lowside, your helmet will work great. But if you crash straight into something hard, then unless you are going less than 15 mph, you will mangle your brain.

I have personally known more riders to die with helmets than without. But that's just because there are more people riding with helmets. In the club, there are a bunch of guys that have been mangled, but not one has had a TBI. About half ride without helmets. So if riding without a helmet means you are selfish, then you should sell the bike and buy a minivan with 52 airbags, because riding in general is medically risky.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

But in terms of medical costs, the TBI is the biggest thing. That said, the more serious TBI's are obtained at speeds greater than 15 mph. So wearing a helmet really doesn't make you that much less of a risk for a TBI.

Sources?

. But if you crash straight into something hard, then unless you are going less than 15 mph, you will mangle your brain.

What percentage of accidents involve collisions involving a sudden stop at greater than 15 MPH?

I have personally known more riders to die with helmets than without. But that's just because there are more people riding with helmets. In the club, there are a bunch of guys that have been mangled, but not one has had a TBI.

I know two people that don't have TBI and they were both traveling at speeds greater than 15MPH when they hit their heads. Point being that anecdotal evidence is just that...anecdotal.

So if riding without a helmet means you are selfish...

What do you call it when a decision one person makes and another person has to financial pay for?

It kind of sounds like you are arguing against helmets in general. Do you doubt the efficacy of helmets?