The freshly burnt shell of a motor scooter cut a dramatic figure at West Putnam Avenue and Valley Drive in Greenwich last Friday. Just as vivid was what lay beside it -- a helmet, scorched and unused. The bike burst into flames shortly after it collided with oncoming traffic, and its rider was thrown nearly 10 feet into the street.

Greenwich Emergency Medical Services rushed the bleeding man, who has not been identified by police, to the Trauma Center at Stamford Hospital for treatment of a severe head injury.

While the rider is expected to make a full recovery, police reported Tuesday, others have not been so lucky. It's been a particularly deadly summer for motorcycle riders in southwestern Connecticut: Since the beginning of June, motorcycles have been responsible for three deaths in the region -- two in New Milford and one in Danbury -- as well as several injuries. The recent fatalities have thrown long-standing debates over Connecticut's partial motorcycle helmet laws into a new light, prompting questions as to the efficacy of helmets and the future of statewide regulations requiring their use.

Helmets can drastically reduce the force of impact on the brain and skull, said Dr. Eric Kung, a neurologist at Stamford Hospital specializing in head injuries.

"Motorcycle accidents are some of the most common causes of traumatic brain injury," he said. "Blunt trauma from an impact of the head with concrete can also cause severe cranial fractures, but with a helmet, the impact a head absorbs is milder."

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration research shows riders who wear helmets are three times less likely to suffer brain trauma than those without them.

Connecticut is one of 31 states that allow adults to choose whether or not to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, provided certain safety conditions are met, though the state requires residents ages 17 and younger to wear them. Initial iterations of the 1966 Highway Safety Act required states to enact universal helmet laws in order to receive federal highway funding. A 1976 amendment dropped this qualification, and the General Assembly overturned the universal helmet requirement later that year. The state passed its partial helmet law in 1989.

According to a 2012 study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, motorcyclists accounted for 12 percent of motor vehicle fatalities in 2010, despite making up less than 1 percent of vehicle miles traveled.

Helmets can only do so much -- a motorcyclist was killed in highway accident in New Milford Sunday, despite wearing helmet, when he crashed through a car window.

"Motorcycle riders are the people at the highest risk on the road," Dr. Kung said. "On a bike, you don't have the relative protection of a steel frame around that you would in a car. It's just more dangerous."

But despite the inherent dangers of revving up a bike, helmets may play a large role in reducing the number of accidents that turn deadly. A 2011 Yale School of Medicine report analyzing state crash data between 2001 and 2007 found that two-thirds of the 358 riders killed in motorcycle accidents had not been wearing helmets.

The higher risk of serious injury or death that comes with optional helmets may also translate into economic losses. NHTSA data suggests that projected reductions in fatalities stemming from universal helmet laws could translate into savings in service costs and household productivity of up to $1,200,000 per avoided fatality.

But for some, the issue isn't about the numbers. Instead, some lawmakers and groups opposed to the ban, such as the Connecticut Motorcycle Riders Association, see the debate over helmets on more philosophical terms -- the increased dangers of riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a choice bikers must make for themselves, like the decision to ride a bike in the first place. To them the debate is one of civil liberties.

"Our position is that if you're 18 or 21 years or over, if you're an adult, and you fulfill certain safety requirements, then, like any other issue, wearing a helmet should be your choice," said Richard Paulkner, a Greenwich-based legislative representative of the CMRA. "We're pushing to make motorcycling as safe as possible, but this isn't a choice that can be made for bikers."

Universal helmet laws, in this sense, are part of a broader narrative of the conflict between government regulation and individual rights. Paulkner acknowledged the social costs of helmetless riding, but said requiring riders to wear helmets would constitute a serious double standard.

"You can make the (social cost) case with so many other issues," said Paulkner, himself an avid motorcycle rider. "Overweight people are a social burden. People who smoke cigarettes are a social burden. People who drink too much are a social burden. But we don't pass laws mandating exercise or limiting the amount of alcohol you can buy."

Despite persistent and numerous motorcycle fatalities, the CMRA's stance may be winning out. Since forgoing adult helmet requirements, the issue has appeared before the state Legislature in bills or amendments 11 times, but has failed every time. Since the last push to advance more stringent helmet laws in 2005, the issue has seen little attention in Hartford.

"I've served in the Connecticut House for five years," said state Rep. Fred Camillo, R-Greenwich, "and even though I've proposed and done a lot of work on public safety bills, on this particularly issue, I can't add anything. It just hasn't come up."

Paulkner, who regularly testified before the General Assembly during deliberations over changing the law, believes Connecticut is coming to understand the issue for what it is.

"This issue isn't as black and white as we thought it was," he said. "The state of Connecticut is an enlightened and progressive one on social issues, and I think people are siding with the individual."

But calls for reinstating more stringent helmet laws have not disappeared. Many lawmakers, like much of the medical community, see helmets as a pragmatic safety issue far removed from ideological considerations or party lines.

"I'm generally opposed to further government regulation, but as far as helmets go, like seat belts, there's a higher survivability rate than without," said state Rep. Tom O'Dea, R-New Canaan. "In this scenario, I would generally support a law requiring to people where helmets. The studies are pretty definitive and clear."