About this Column COLLEEN STONE is a producer at MaineToday and guest columnist for our blog in print — a "plog" — that combines comments people make on MaineToday.com with her thoughts about issues. Because many people post to online anonymously, or through the use of monikers, Stone may have to limit her source attributions to first name or screen name. In general, the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram prohibits the use of anonymous sources in its stories. We are making an exception for this unique edited column that links the online world to the print world. If you would like to suggest a story, let us know your idea or question. To top of story

To mandate helmets or not to mandate motorcycle helmets? That, once again, was the question after a high-profile accident involving Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and a Maine woman in Pittsburgh recently. (The other driver, Martha Fleishman, 62, will be cited for failing to yield to oncoming traffic.) Roethlisberger, who was riding a motorcycle, was not wearing a helmet. A helmet might not have prevented his broken nose, jaw and damaged teeth, but one thing's clear: He's lucky he escaped with only a concussion instead of a more serious head injury — something a helmet does protect against.

Like Pennsylvania, where the accident occurred, Maine has no helmet law. It's common to see bikers cruising down local roads or highways with their hair flapping in the wind. Given the high risks bikers face in the event of an accident, should Maine make all bikers don helmets? Users responding to the Portland Press Herald story at MaineToday.com delivered a mixed response.

For many, the question wasn't one of safety but of personal choice. A user named Mike was in the camp sounding the mantra "Let those who ride decide." He didn't think there was a need to legislate good behavior:

"SHOULD bikers wear helmets? Yes. Just like drivers SHOULD wear seatbelts. But does that mean there needs to be a law to FORCE people to adopt these good behaviors? NO. How difficult is this concept — that adults should be free to make responsible choices, and suffer the consequences of irresponsible choices?"

The concept is not difficult at all. It's swapping the abstraction of "consequence" with the specific — death, paralysis, brain damage — that's a little difficult. The whole concept becomes even harder to swallow when you consider that such dire consequences might be prevented by a simple act.

And then there's the matter of other people suffering the possible consequences of a rider's decision not to wear a helmet. A lot of people posting had conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of riders not wearing helmets on insurance rates — and they concluded that anything that might drive them down was worth mandating. Scott was one such user:

"I ride a motorcycle. I choose to wear a helmet. Those who choose to ride without head protection may have the right to do so, but I have the right to not pay their medical bills (through higher insurance premiums) when they become potted plants after an accident."

If only it was easy to make sure that the cost of injuries resulting from irresponsible choices fell solely on the makers of those choices. Alas, it's not. And as more than a few of you were quick to add, why just target bikers? Why not go after the smokers, those with poor diets that lead to diabetes and the plain accident-prone? After all, that guy who broke his toe by walking into the coffee table definitely should have been paying more attention.

Even more important than the monetary cost is the emotional cost. A user named Robert, fed up with the "my decision, my consequences" arguments, urged riders to think of others:

"Besides the costs of medical care, we need to think about the related costs of lost income for families and the tragedy and trauma of losing a loved one or having a loved one with a traumatic brain injury. I have worked in a treatment facility for people with traumatic brain injuries and the emotional costs can far outweigh any monetary ones. It is just selfish not to wear a helmet."

No one touched that argument, and there's a reason for that: It's untouchable. How do you argue that your death won't affect your friends and family?

There was yet another argument to be made for a helmet law, which many of you did: If people riding in cars are required by the law to wear seatbelts for added protection in the event of an accident, why aren't bikers required to wear helmets? Good question.

A few of you opposed to a helmet law said it wouldn't solve the problem of inattentive car operators who fail to yield to motorcycles, jabber away on their cell phones and cause accidents involving motorcycles. That's true. And another argument for bikers to wear helmets.

Still others said that helmets diminish the physical pleasure of riding a bike. They make it hard to hear, they can interfere with peripheral vision and they're hot. A few of you noted that in some cases, helmets can cause injuries by snapping a rider's head back. (Reminds me of the argument from people against seatbelts that in some cases, they can cause death. Key words here are "some cases.")

I'll grant that motorcycle helmets can be uncomfortable — I've worn them. You know what else is uncomfortable? A skull fracture.

A sweaty head or a cracked one? The choice is yours — for now.