In a move that made little sense to anyone, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to allow those over 21 years of age who have had a motorcycle license for at least two years or have completed an approved safety course to ride without a helmet. The legislation took effect yesterday.

Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria, said he sponsored the bill because most motorcyclsts are mature adults capable of making their own decisions.

The problem with this logic is that by definition, accidents are not decisions; they are accidents.

Two years of experience or classroom training can't teach motorcyclsts how to deal with the unexpected.

You can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in an enclosed vehicle. But for a motorcycle, an open, two-wheel bike, the only protection you need is for your eyes.

The decision by motorcyclsts not to prepare for accidents affects more than just those involved in the incident.

When someone riding without health insurance decides not to wear a helmet is seriously injured, taxpayers are forced to pay for his or her so-called individual choice.

The legislature, however, did not repeal the law requiring motorcyclsts to wear eye protection. Apparently, lawmakers are more concerned with cyclists eyes than their brains.

But the repeal only has to effect motorcyclsts if they let it. Just because there is no longer a law mandating the use of helmets does not mean cyclists should stop wearing them.

There does not have to be a law telling us to brush our teeth to know it's a good idea.