It shouldn't need to take more than two words – wear them – to settle any discussion of helmets while riding a two-wheeled vehicle.

Unfortunately, helmet opponents continue to stick their necks out on this issue, sometimes with dangerous results.

Last weekend, hundreds of motorcyclists converged on Onondaga, N.Y., to take part in a rally opposing mandatory state helmet laws. Tragically, one of the motorcyclists lost control of his Harley-Davidson, went over his handlebars, hit his head on the pavement and died.

According to the Associated Press, state troopers said the 55-year-old rider likely would have survived if he'd been wearing a helmet.

Motorcycle libertarians are not alone in attempting to free themselves from the terrible bondage of helmets.

As bicycles increasingly become part of the urban fabric, I continue to encounter fringe cyclists who argue that helmets are part of some grand conspiracy to prevent them from enjoying the wind through their hair.

I'd be OK if they'd simply argue that bicycle helmets are often dorky and uncomfortable, which they undoubtedly are.

But unneeded? Part of a coordinated assault on our liberties?

Probably the most prominent demonizer of bicycle helmets is Mikael Colville-Andersen, an entertaining provocateur who writes the Cycle Chic blog in Copenhagen. He recently appeared in a widely distributed video (which you can find on www.saccyclechic.com) arguing that the helmet industry is over-hyping the dangers of cycling to sell its products, aided by an auto industry wanting to maintain its dominance of the streets.

"Fear is big business," he says, before going off to make the soft-brained claim that helmets actually increase the chance of accidents and head injuries for cyclists.

Like those who oppose motorcycle helmets, Colville-Andersen makes selective use of the medical literature. Yet any clear-eyed review of the studies will demonstrate that helmets – worn by cyclists, motorcyclists, horseback riders, skateboarders, skiers and snowboarders – have saved lives and prevented serious injury. And simple common sense tells you that your head is much more likely to avoid concussion or even fatal injury when you wear a well-made helmet.

I was reminded of this just last month.

While concluding a long ride on my speedy road bicycle, I turned a corner and came across an unexpected obstacle. Before I knew it, I was flying through the air. I landed on the pavement on my head and left shoulder.

People who saw me crash came to my aid. They called an ambulance and asked me questions to see if I had sustained a head injury.

I was swept to the ER, and spent two days in the hospital with a punctured lung and a torn-up shoulder and chest. But my head was OK. I was wearing a helmet. That helmet was cracked in three places, but it undoubtedly saved me from a serious concussion or worse. I was back at work in three days, hobbled but grateful it wasn't worse.

The issue of helmets and cyclists is not likely to go away.

Nearly every year, the California chapter of ABATE – which stands for "A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments" – attempts to get state lawmakers to repeal California's 1991 law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. ABATE leaders say they support voluntary use of helmets, but argue the requirement should not be mandatory. They also claim that helmets, in certain situation, can add to the risk of injuries or are ineffective.

I can understand some of their arguments. If you fly off a motorcycle at high speed, there's probably nothing that can save you. And if motorcyclists choose to take excessive risks by riding without a helmet, isn't that their choice? Why should the government intervene?

The answer, of course, is that disabling injuries cost society huge sums each year – costs that can be reduced through mandatory helmet laws. As the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported in 2002, some 25 studies of motorcycle crashes have "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments and probability of long-term disability."

I am not quite ready yet to advocate for mandatory bicycle helmet laws, but that day may be coming. More and more in midtown Sacramento, I see hipster bicyclists cruising the streets, wearing stylish hats on their heads instead of helmets.

I used to be one of them. Yet since my encounter with hard pavement and the hospital, I have stopped taking the smallest chances. I now wear a helmet at all times, whether going fast on my road bike or around the block on my cruiser.

I plan to keep cycling my entire life. Wearing a helmet will improve the chances of a long one.

Lawsuit waiting to happen

In reading this account, you might wonder about the "unexpected obstacle" I encountered that allowed me to test out my bicycle helmet.

It was a bollard – a steel post – on the American River Parkway.

These bollards prevent unauthorized vehicles from entering the parkway. Yet they pose a danger when rangers and other authorities unlock them and leave them on the ground when driving their own vehicles through.

After finishing my long ride, I turned off the bike trail at William Pond Park, not expecting a bollard to be lying across part of my path. I hit it straight on and flew off the bike.

Some friends have suggested I might have grounds for a lawsuit, and they could be right. If county officials want to avoid big payouts to bicyclists more litigious than I, they should take steps to minimize this danger.

Unlocked bollards should not be left lying on the ground.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.