Wednesday, March 11, 2009

heads up

I always find the "I have a right to ride my motorcycle without a helmet!" controversy rather interesting.

WHY do bikers think they have a right to ride their motorcycle without a helmet? Truck and car drivers don't have a right to drive without a seat belt. What makes them so special?

Personally, I don't care. If you want to feel the wind blowing through your brain matter, have at it, but at least come up with a LOGICAL rationalization.

Take this argument, for instance: "A number of bikers who were veterans told state lawmakers Tuesday it was ironic they had fought for the freedom of people in other countries but they were denied the freedom to ride without a helmet in Maryland." I wonder how many of these veterans went into combat MINUS head protection of any type?


BRUNO said...

It all goes back to the "original" art of motorcycling, when it was a novelty, of sorts, instead of solid transportation. Even then, SOME wore aviator-style headgear, as a display of testosterone!:)

BUT, that being said---I ALWAYS wore a helmet when I rode. It was MY choice. And, of course---it was the law. I've always worn belts, too---at least in the cars I'd owned which HAD them. Once again---MY choice, which was not yet, years ago, the law. I say leave it to the individual.

As for vets wearing helmets in combat? Not to be a smart-ass here, BUT---if they were SPEC-OPS, such as SEALS, RANGERS, RECON-units, etc.---very likely they actually DID NOT. Less to carry, less noise, and as you were already THAT close---it wouldn't make a difference anyway??? At least the infantry units had HALF a chance to save their asses---er, HEADS!---with a "lucky-duck", or two...!

*Goddess* said...

You know what? I think you ARE being a smart ass. LOL!

Actually, I know there are special ops that don't wear helmets, but don't the ground fighters and night fighters generally wear helmets?

BBC said...

Hon, it's all about freedom of choice, the monkeys here always want freedom of choice, not that I'm saying that is a good thing.

If they want to ride without a helmet, fine, but if they get in trouble they shouldn't expect us to save them.

It's their lives, their choice.

The Future Was Yesterday said...

This was always an "issue" in Michigan for as long as I can remember. Down here (the south), both N. and S. Carolina are helmet free, with a mickey mouse law that riders under x years must wear helmets, which is ignored by both riders and cops.

They can do anything they want to as far as I'm concerned, but if they go down or are in an accident, then I demand the right to put what should have been their brains, in a jar, and throw away the empty head, instead of paying for all these mental morons hospital bills. After they go down, they're often vegetables the rest of their lives, and I end up paying for that, too.

When I clean my refrig, I throw out the rotten veggies. If they want the right to ride without a helmet, then I demand the right to throw out the rotten veggies.

BRUNO said...

Why, YES, it's much better being a SMART-ass, as opposed to a DUMB-one!

And, YES, I always kept my helmet close THEN, too. Kept the monkey-shit outta the trees off me, made a good wash-basin, and a fantastic seat, to keep the leeches from crawlin' up my ass!

As for NIGHT-fights? Nothin' there in the DARK, that ain't there in the LIGHT!

There's a reason helmets of BOTH kinds were made---and it WASN'T because they were PRETTY! Even on "hawgs"! Although, I still think bicycle-helmets are kinda, I dunno---"fruity", especially for the neighborhood kids. But then again, one look at MY head---? Well, maybe it SHOULD have been a law, even in the stone ages of my youth...!!!