I don't ride a motorcycle and I'm not a Steelers fan (sadly I root for the Bills). But that doesn't stop me from forming a quick opinion on today's news that Ben Roethlisberger was injured in a motorcycle crash.

Big Ben has not been shy about saying he prefers to ride his bike without a helmet. And early reports suggest he was tooling around downtown Pittsburgh this morning without a protective covering for his millionaire melon. Really smart, Ben.

I wish him a full and speedy recovery. No one (aside from some sick Browns fans) really want to see the guy suffe r for a dumb mistake.

But you have to wonder: what is he thinking? Why on earth would someone with so much to lose risk his livelihood by riding without a helmet?

But an even bigger question is why Pennsylvania decided to repeal its helmet law in 2003. I'm all about personal freedom. But why, when we require seatbelts and airbags don't we require the most exposed motorists on the road to wear a common-sense piece of safety equipment? Why, in an age when we're already paying too much for our medical care, would we make it more likely for those riding motorcycles to get seriously injured in a wreck?

I suspect I'll hear from some of you who would say that helmets pose dangers.

But before you write, offer me some proof -- and offer me a common sense explanation for how someone getting thrown from a cycle at 35 mph would be worse off without something to cushion his head when it hits the pavement.

Big Ben has to protect his head when he's standing in the pocket for the Pittsburgh Steelers, navigating his way through 300-lb. linemen. Why shouldn't he do the same thing when he's flying down the highway, trying to make his way around 2,000-lb. cars and multi-ton semis.