Abstract
A cost- benefit analysis of motorcycle helmet legislation compares the cost of motorcycle helmets with medical costs averted by helmet use. Data are primarily based on the accident experience of motorcyclists in Colorado, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. It is pointed out that allegations of increased neck injuries due to helmet use are unfounded, that helmets do not obstruct hearing, and that their use only slightly reduces the field of vision, which still exceeds the federal standard for horizontal field of view. It is argued that possible discomfort and inconvenience associated with helmet use should not prevent mandating their use.