I was surprised at your editorial this last weekend about the unnecessary intrusion of governmental regulations into the lives of those that feel they should not have to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
You questioned the use of tax dollars to support the "Click it or Ticket" campaign, but failed to ask whether the riders and drivers who complain would eschew acceptance of public support should they be maimed.
Will they demand that the government give them responsibility for their medical costs as loudly as they decry their loss of "freedom?" Based on the way you argued the question, I would love to flip coins with you. You would keep blaming lady luck for being against you when I keep calling heads and taking your money, rather than even considering that you should look to see if I have a two headed coin! I do not believe the public cares about whether you wear the helmet or the belt.
The public cares about what condition you will be in after a wreck and whether you expect to ask the taxpayer to support you the rest of your life when you have crippled yourself.
I would be willing to argue with you to get rid of the regulations if all drivers and bike riders who choose not to protect themselves will get together with their like-minded friends and accept legal and fiscal responsibility for each other should they be injured. See how many of your, "I love the wind through my hair" riders and your "It feels too confining" drivers will put their real property up as collateral to cover the medical care and rehabilitation costs for each other. When that happens, we can discuss changing the regulations and using the tax dollars more wisely.