I realize that this is an old topic of discussion, but it does present some interesting angles to look at. Obviously the first area to discuss would be how can you allow a group to opt out of a safety regulation when you have gov’t funded health care? The potential liability to the health care system is of course greater for the non helmet crowd compared to those wearing helmets, that’s why we have seat belt laws to reduce potential injuries and have less impact on the healthcare system when the inevitable accidents occur. Next up is the question, would insurance companies be able to charge more to insure non helmeted riders, since the likelihood of greater medical costs in the event of an accident. This is where it really gets interesting, because for the insurance company to do the only logical thing and raise premiums on non helmet wearers, they will have to discriminate between customers based on religion. Opens up a huge bag of trouble. If insurance companies are permitted to charge higher rates to cover non helmet wearing Sikhs, then does that open the door to allow other entities and individuals to discriminate between other religious, racial, sexual groups etc., when it can be proven that their “differences” cause economic impact on the entity in question. Today the answer is no, you can’t discriminate