Very annoyed at the motorbike segment: what kind of logic is behind the guest's refusal for mandating helmets? He goes off about tax dollars: as far as I know, helmets aren't bought with tax dollars. He does say he wants a (presumably government-funded) study of risks. Does the fact of NOT mandating helmets and the resulting deaths and injuries thus become the justification for his precious study? That's just sick.
And the "free choice" argument? Fine with me: but then make sure you report your refusal to wear a helmet to your insurance company, and be prepared to be left on the asphalt if you're expecting publicly-funded treatment after your hair-in-the-wind spin ends up with your hair in a bloody pool on the ground.
Sorry, angry about these fair-weather liberatarians.