OLD BLASTARD: The helmetless go touring

A Detroit Free Press editorial is recommending that Michigan trash its  helmet law that requires riders to have a big chunk of styrofoam, fiberglass and plastic stuck on their head so they look like they're wearing a giant ping-pong ball or multi-hued Easter egg.

It's not an argument for rider's rights. It's not an argument for safety. It's an argument for the Great Motivator, money.

"Our outdated helmet law is a barrier to motorcycle tourism," wrote Jim Rhoades. "At the same time, the current law does nothing to reduce motorcycle injuries and fatalities. Michigan is the one Great Lakes state with a mandatory helmet law. Surveys repeatedly show that an overwhelming majority of motorcyclists in neighboring states refuse to visit Michigan because of this law."

Mr. Rhoades noted a study done by Michigan Consultants in my old stomping grounds, Lansing. It said "Michigan is losing millions of tourism dollars and approximately $1.2 billion in overall economic benefit because of this law. For example, Harley Davidson's 105th anniversary in 2008 brought more than $135 million to Wisconsin's economy during the four-day event. After Florida modified its helmet law, the state took in more than $100 million in additional revenue -- just from new motorcycle registrations. Florida also had an increase of 110% in motorcycle registrations with a significant reduction in motorcycle fatalities."

Well, I'm not all that sure. See, I've been teaching a lot of beginning riders as of late and I've seen two get-offs at less than 20 mph that, without helmets, could have caused serious injuries and that, even with helmets, led to a black eye and a trip to the hospital.

Bam!

In fact, had the students been wearing a fullface helmet, neither would have been hurt. It's called a 'high side' and it can happen when either the front or rear brake lock up, the bike swings violently and throws the rider not up and over but slam-dunk, face-first, right-now to the pavement.

Call it a face plant. Call it painful. Call it something that can happen to anyone on a daily ride.

Imagine cruising along on a back road doing, say 40. This is a Michigan backroad with a lot of those snake-like tar patches that the highway folks use to save money rather than repaving roads (especially up in Michigan where the snakes are thick as roaches at a roadside diner).

 Those suckers are banana peel-slick when it gets hot and it's 90 degrees and can cause a tire to shimy to the side in a simple turn.

Now, imagine a deer runs out in front of you -- easy to have happen in Jeffersonia, let alone rural Michigan -- and your finely tuned reflexes but the brakes on hard.

Normally, there's no issue, but in the case the back tire is on one of those damned snakes and it starts into some silly-ass sliding routine and as you ride it out, the tire suddenly gains traction, the bike lurches one way, you compensate (still braking) and the front wheel hits a snake, tipping it out from under you.

Bam! Like an Emeril Lagasse spice you hit pavement face first.

With a full face helmet, you get body bruises. With an open face helmet, you lose teeth, busted nose, busted cheeckbone, black eye. Sans helmet, well, who knows.

Helmets do decrease injuries. They do decrease deaths. The more protective the helmet, the less pain you endure.

I'm pro-helmet, although not necessarily pro-helmet law. Still, I'm not sure cutting back the helmet law is a good thing.

Of course, if cutting the law can make you money, well, it's not YOUR pain now, is it?