Fewer helmets, more rests 1798

Actually, judges are interpreting the Consbreastution. And they are saying that the Consbreastution has no provision saying that the government cannot require them to wear helmets riding a motorcycle. Part of the goal of the Consbreastution is to provide for the general welfare. Riding around without a helmet doesn't help the general welfare- it hurts it, and it incurs a negligible "freedom"- the freedom to do something stupid. As Abraham Lincoln said, nobody has the right to do wrong.

The only question is how much does it cost to enforce a law against these wrongs that harm society- does the gain offset the cost of enforcement. It's arguable society would be better off without alcohol- it kills over 110,000 people a year ,and the heart disease it prevents likely could be treated by other means (and the effect is small- plenty of alcoholics have heart disease). We tried Prohibition, and it lead to mbuttive corruption at the local level in governments- the monetary cost was outweighed by government become "sleazy". OTOH, motorcycles are not popular, they are currently mostly an optional lifestyle choice (they do have benefits that offset the risks- increased fuel economy, lower cost, etc. of course- but for most bikers I would guess this is not their rationale), and it would be easy to enforce laws against unhelmeted riders. The only people who will get in an uproar about helmet laws are the minority of bikers who don't like people telling them what to do. These same people probably have a grudge against authority in general ,so pleasing them should not be a concern of the government.