From CT. Go ahead respond to this.... we're called donorcycles

OFF THE WIRE
Anybody feel motivated to respond???? I know I will~
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-motorcycle-helmets-20110526,0,3017013.storyTaxpayers Should Demand Helmet Law
'Donorcycles' Cost Us All Per mile traveled, deaths on motorcycles are 37 times the number in cars ShareNew(3)
May 26, 2011 Now that summerlike weather has finally arrived, motorcyclists have taken to the streets, which raises anew the question: Why do Connecticut taxpayers put up with a weak helmet law that costs them money?
The law requires only motorcyclists under 18 to wear helmets. If for no reason other than the state's need to save funds, the General Assembly should have, this session, enacted a law similar to those in Massachusetts, New York and 18 other states requiring all motorcyclists to use helmets.
Here are the depressing facts: In 2007, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 36 motorcycle riders died in crashes in Connecticut. That number may seem small, but it's not. Per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles was 37 times the number of people killed in cars, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. A common saying among those in the medical community is that motorcycles ought to be called "donorcycles," because so often the organs of dead bikers are used for transplants.
But the deaths, regrettable though they are, are not the main issue when it comes to the cost of motorcycle accidents to the state. The problem is not those who die, but those who survive crashes and need expensive medical care for years — perhaps the rest of their lives. Such costs often end up being paid by the state. We all pay when helmets aren't worn.
A 2008 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — just one of many — found that a motorcyclist without a helmet is three times more likely than a rider with protective headgear to suffer traumatic brain injuries.
Some bikers claim that helmets make riding more dangerous. They reduce peripheral vision, make it hard to hear and increase the likelihood of neck injuries, according to no-helmet proponents. More than a dozen respected studies have shown these claims to be bogus. A report for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for example, found that "the effects of helmets upon the ability to see and hear are, at most, far too small to compromise the safety benefits offered by head protection."
It has been several years since a bill to strengthen Connecticut's helmet law got far in the General Assembly. In the 1970s, bikers turned out by the thousands to protest the helmet law at the time, both at the Capitol and on the state's highways. Perhaps the memory of that lobbying makes legislators unwilling to raise the issue.
Regardless, it's time to reintroduce a law requiring helmets of all riders. The pro-helmet argument is about saving lives and saving taxpayer dollars, too.