The Pennsylvania Senate voted 29-20 on Monday to repeal the state’s 35-year-old motorcycle… The Pennsylvania Senate voted 29-20 on Monday to repeal the state’s 35-year-old motorcycle helmet law. The new bill, which would require only riders age 21 and younger and those with less than two years riding experience to wear protective headgear, unless they take a state-run motorcycle safety course, is now headed for the House. Governor Ed Rendell says he’ll sign it into law if the legislature approves it.

If the new bill passes, it will be a great stride for our backward, paternalistic state. Pennsylvania is notorious for interfering in the affairs of its citizens, and allowing bikers to make their own decisions regarding personal safety would be a huge step forward.

Unlike laws prohibiting driving under the influence of chemicals, the law requiring anyone on a motorcycle in Pennsylvania to wear a helmet is arbitrary and meddlesome.

A biker without a helmet poses no more of a threat to others in an accident than a helmeted biker. A driver, on the other hand, is responsible for all the passengers in the car and can easily endanger others on the road by not being restrained.

It’s a common saying among bikers that they come in two types: those who’ve crashed, and those who haven’t yet. Motorcyclists have no illusions that theirs is the safest mode of transportation. It’s a dangerous hobby, much like rock climbing or bungee jumping, and those who enjoy it come into the sport well informed of the dangers. If they pose no threat to others, however, it should be up to them to make an informed decision to wear protective gear or not.

The case could be made that helmets impede safety; they certainly detract from visibility and hearing. Regardless, the decision belongs in the hands – and heads – of riders themselves.

While the number 21 may be arbitrary – after all, 18-year-old citizens are expected to vote, pay taxes and possibly serve their country as adults in all ways except raising a toast to their great state – it’s a wise idea to impose an age restriction on the privilege to go helmetless on a hog.

With age comes experience and judgment. Mature adults should be able to mindfully take risks with their own health and well-being. Adults often make rules for children with “I say so” as the stated rationale and a child’s safety as the true reason. In this scenario, the state isn’t being unfair to impose rules on the young for their own good.

Requiring riders to have two years of experience can be seen as a rite of passage, something to aspire to. It can be an obvious mark of experience, a way to distinguish skilled riders from neophytes.

If Pennsylvania keeps up this trend of having rational laws and repealing officious ones, what could be next? Liquor on Sundays?