OK, so there are a few people that don't mind Darwinian survival of the fittest, and allowing the stupidest elements of society to take themselves out of the gene pool. But realistically even the most jaded cynics don't really want to see others harmed, most are just talking tough.

1. The most obvious cost is that helmets restrict vision and hearing -- which riders use to avoid accidents. That means that if you are wearing a helmet, you are probably more likely to get in an accident in the first place. Who knows more about what risks they should be able to take with their body, the rider, or someone who has never been on a motorcycle?
    



2. When people are wearing helmets (and leathers, and so on), they are not as "naked" -- and human nature is that many will take more risks than they would otherwise because they feel safer than they really are. So forcing people to wear a helmet may encourage them to ride more dangerously.
    



3. While there is less head trauma when wearing a helmet, there is no proof that this reduces healthcare costs. The added torque on the neck in accident may increase neck trauma. In fact, there is a good chance that while the brain-bucket will save the head, it may increase spinal cord injuries, or increase survivability of seriously injured people (that maybe should not survive). There is probably a higher chance that you will live -- but live as a quadriplegic or a vegetable on a life support machine, which costs society far more than if you died.

1. Many had nothing invested and were scamming the system -- they just got in the condos, and knew that it would take 6 - 18 months to get evicted (for not paying) -- and so it was like free rent. They would not have done this had they had to put $10,000 of their own dollars in up front. But with only a couple thousand in closing costs, it was profitable to cheat the system.
    



2. Some not only scammed the system by not paying, but they even rented their units out ( keeping the money) while they were defaulting on their loans, and the system was going through the long process of taking the units back.
    



3. Of course many HUD owners didn't have much invested -- and so they had little value in the place (both their units and the complex itself), and in fact trashed them and were contemptuous for those that cared. Why should they care, it wasn't their money?
    



4. All this caused the value of the units to drop (renter/owner ratio going up, more empty units, a "lower" element). When the values kept dropping many of the better HUD people also decided to walk -- once they were a little upside down in their loans they had nothing to lose. While those of us who had spent far more to get in, couldn't walk away so easily.
    



5. Banks didn't care, they were insured through the Govt. (they got paid). HUD didn't care, and sold all the reclaimed units at auction for whatever they could get that day (cash only). When Comps were going for $80K, HUD sold some Condos at auction for $43K, or even $38K (especially the trashed units). Imagine what that does to everyone else's property value. I don't have to imagine, I know.

1. Social Security has not taught people to plan for their future, and instead has taught many to let the govt. do their thinking (planning) for them. It put many on the govt. doles, and many are far worse off today than they would have been had there been nothing, and they had instead learned to take responsibility for their own retirement. So much so, that Social Security has really become nothing other than a youth tax -- where the young (who are starting out and have little) are forced to subsidize the incomes of retirees who own their own houses and have had their entire lives to save. SS has even helped break down the family bonds since people don't have to care for parents or grandparents since now they think "that is Govts. job". There are many unintended effects. American save less than about any other society in the world -- why should they?
    



2. Welfare has taught many that they don't have to work, and they can live off of others. In fact, it has told teens that they can get a free ride in life if they just have kids. Of course the realities are not so pleasant as they think, but once lured in, it is hard to get out. (I dealt with inner-city youths for a while. Many were intentionally getting pregnant just to get out of the house and go on welfare and get a govt. paycheck for staying at home). More unintended effects. The problem of poverty has not decreased since the "war on poverty" despite trillions of dollars poured into it, because the problem is not about money.
    



3. War on drugs has not stopped or even slowed illegal drugs. If you doubt me, ask your high school kid if he could buy a joint or some coke if he wanted. In fact the "war" has only increased the profits for running drugs, and lured many into a selling drugs for profit (maybe to get out of the welfare trap). The results are these kids often have to exist in gangs to survive, and they still get killed or imprisoned (where they cost society even more) -- remember gangs have gotten so much worse because now they are fighting over drug-distribution rights (and profits). So our prohibition on drugs has lured more youths into the wrong lifestyle, increased rewards for breaking the laws, and done nothing to really stop illegal drugs (because we can't do that). We have illegal drugs in our prisons, and they have illegal drugs in Police States (both with far less freedoms than I hope America will ever get to) -- yet our politicians keep telling us if we give up a little more money, a few more human rights and just a little more of our freedoms, then we will be able to stop drugs and things will be better. Uh huh. The truth is we can be strip-searched on a semi-regular basis, have completely unacceptable intrusions into our privacy, and those that want to make money selling drugs, and those that want to take them, will still be able to. We may be achieving the opposite of what we want to -- so far all of our actions seem to have only increased the problems.
    



4. We have 16,000+ gun control laws, and more gun problems than ever. In fact the cities and states with the stiffest gun control laws have the worst gun problems (like L.A., D.C. and NYC) -- and the problems got WORSE after the gun laws were passed. (Of course the opposite is true in cities with the most lax gun control laws -- they had crime rates and gun problems go down). Why? In America 1.5 Million times a year guns are used to prevent crimes or in self defense. The more you limit that, the higher the likelihood that those crimes won't be prevented and that guns will only be used to abuse others. With over 300 Million guns in the country, you can't get rid of them, and can't keep them out of the hands of criminals (as proven by the drug war) -- the only thing you can do is give up freedoms and outlaw people's right to defend themselves. Definitely not the intended goals -- but that is the actual results.