Unless you count the insurance company or taxpayer that has to support the trauma victim

In particular, privacy comes to mind. Respecting privacy denies law enforcement access to tools that might aid in the quick investigating of crimes. Why should your need for privacy be allowed to harm the taxpayer that has to support expensive investigations?

And freedom is a slippery slope to anarchy. Slippery slopes are best addressed with some reasonable theory that explains where the line is - where cost exceeds benefit. Ideally government would attempt to decide what our core values are - how we weigh privacy vs. freedom vs. equality vs. security vs. fairness - and then try to evaluate policies based on how they fare in these dimensions.

That's the same. If they ask you, you can say no, in which case they'll demand you ride with a helmet, lest be uncovered.

> with some reasonable theory that explains where the line is

I'm arguing that the particular argument of "you can't do that, it might cost the taxpayers money" is over the line. I'm for stuff like consumer protection, standards in advertising, anti-trust and a slew of other statist, communist oppressing regiments. I'm not in favour of spending the polices resources on giving you a ticket if you decide to ride your bike along the beach on a beautiful summers evening and want to feel the wind in your hair.

The taxpayer question is more complicated, since most people would probably agree that we can't allow an accident victim to bleed to death at the side of the road because they chose not to use their seat-belt. I'm fairly confident, however, that a solution could be devised without recourse to state interference in personal decisions.