helmets: financial costs standpoint
in the debate on helmet laws, occasionally i'll see the mention that if more/all bikers wore helmets, or were forced to wear helmets by law, then it would be cost effective for all of us; that bikers who don't wear helmets actually contribute to higher medical costs/insurance/emergency services. the reasoning, if i understand it correctly, is that a dead biker manufactures more/higher costs than a biker who survives an accident, and that there would be fewer dead bikers if everyone was wearing a helmet.
personal preferences aside (and agreeing that a helmet does improve your chance of survival in accidents), i've never actually seen this backed up with any actual facts/figures which begs the question: is this true? would taxes/insurance/etc actually be lower if there were fewer biker fatalities and universal helmet laws? the wrench that i throw into this is that a biker who would have died in an accident if not for wearing a helmet is now alive but has accumulated a mountain of medical bills/lost wages/etc. doesn't this offset things?