Once again, opponents of Michigan's mandatory helmet law are attempting to establish legislation that would greatly reduce its effectiveness.

This legislation comes in the form of House Bill 4325, which would make helmets optional for riders over the age of 21 that have passed a motorcycle safety course and have at least two years of riding experience.

There are some who support this bill, as was evidenced by its passing the Transportation Committee in May, because it provides increased freedom of decision making to the rider and doesn't threaten to overexert the government's role in society. On the other hand, many see it as a necessary, simple, and inexpensive way to save lives and public resources.

What experience and statistics show us is that there is simply no good reason not to wear a helmet while blasting across Michigan's perpetually dilapidated asphalt roads, surrounded by oversized cars and trucks operated by inattentive and apathetic drivers.

Helmets do not inhibit the hearing or vision and very rarely, if ever, increase the likelihood of a neck injury as a few shady scientific studies have claimed to prove. They are excellent for keeping bugs off the head and for protecting the skull in a crash. According to the National Center for Statistics & Analysis, in the year 2000 motorcyclists were an astounding 21 times more likely to die in the event of a crash and four times more likely to be injured than were passenger car occupants, per vehicle miles traveled.

Motorcycling is a dangerous hobby, and we can make it less dangerous at a relatively minimal cost to the rider and at zero cost to the general public. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that an un-helmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to sustain a fatal head injury, while helmets in general are 67 percent effective at preventing brain injuries of any sort. Those are some pretty sizable numbers that certainly seem worth the minimal inconveniences the mandatory helmet law entails.

Let me confess that I don't feel that helmets only make other drivers and pedestrians safer to a marginal extent. Eye protection is required for motorcyclists in all states, whether or not there is a mandatory helmet law on the books. You'll notice that a large portion of riders in Michigan use helmets that do not utilize a face shield - yet they are still required by law to always wear eye protection.

Additionally, many helmets do little to reduce certain other distractions, such as bug splats and heavy wind noise. Nonetheless, I've seen face shields covered in the feathers and blood of a hapless low-flying bird. I've heard multiple stories concerning airborne debris on the freeway and even of bats at night, slamming into the head of a rider. Helmets certainly cannot hurt a rider's chances of avoiding accidents and in no way hinder the senses.

The reality of this situation should be simple: A human head hitting an inflexible object at high speed is far more likely to not be transformed into nasty mush when encased by a Department of Transportation-approved motorcycle helmet. Once a head hits pavement, a tree, a car, or a signpost it becomes necessary to try and repair the many sensitive and complex damaged tissues. Such repair commonly follows motorcycle accidents involving un-helmeted riders and costs a fair amount.

And by "fair," I mean enormous to an ungodly extent. Someone has to pay for this, and I'll bet you know who that someone is. If not the taxpayer, then others covered by that person's health insurance provider must shoulder the suddenly heavier financial burden.

I realize that many of us enjoy imprudent activities that could very easily result in added health care costs for others, such as drinking a bit too much on the weekend or eating too much junk food. Nevertheless, I cannot think of any activity the majority of us indulge in that creates such a real and pressing threat for incredibly expensive emergency medical care.

Mandating that citizens protect their heads while motorcycling comes with a multitude of fringe benefits as well. Studies have shown that mandatory helmet laws also reduce motorcycle thefts by decreasing the likelihood of someone hot-wiring and riding away on an unsecured motorcycle they happen upon, as riding without a helmet would attract the police far too quickly to make success a possibility. This benefit is coupled with the assurance that fewer would lose their loved ones to easily preventable head injuries.

I hope that such arguments are not lost on the current helmet law's many opponents, who tend to favor the "slippery-slope" assertion, among other claims. It alleges that the law is the first step in a gradual erosion of other civil liberties by the government.

In my opinion, such an argument assumes that the human spirit is too weak to draw a line without crossing it, and is too stupid to know the difference between common sense life-saving legislation and laws intended to actually subjugate the free individual.

The human character, in my experience, does have the strength and always will know the difference. I hope that House Bill 4325 is soon defeated and that any other efforts to demolish our highly effective helmet law are carefully rethought.

Nathan Wisman is a social relations senior. Reach him at wismanna@msu.edu.