It felt damned good.
Helmets are to motorcycling what clumsy prophylactics are to sex. They interfere with the experience. Limit the experience.
Don’t tell me about “safety.” In the first place, my safety is none of your business – anyone’s business, except maybe my wife’s. Much less the business of the government. The only (legitimate) business of government, if it has any at all, is to see to it that people’s rights are protected. I violate no one’s rights by riding without a helmet. Ergo, no one has any right to compel me to wear one.
Americans – too many of them – have their heads screwed on backwards. They confuse what they don’t like or would not do themselves with what ought to be illegal. This of course is madness, because each of us regards with distaste things done (or not done) by others, or “wouldn’t do that” themselves. If that’s going to be the standard for administering wood shampoos then perhaps everyone ought to wear a helmet all the time.
But, seriously. The only things that – ethically – ought to be illegal are those actions which cause harm to other people. Being uncomfortable at the sight of someone riding a motorcycle sans helmet does not rise to that level.
Nor that he might get hurt.
That’s his business and besides, a society with its head screwed on straight doesn’t accost/cage people over might – particularly when might only involves the person whose actions entail the might. Possibly harming you or some other innocent party is one thing. A guy possibly causing himself harm is a very different thing.
A society with its head screwed on straight only punishes people who actually do – and who do to others. It’s a simple, clearcut and very logical standard. And it checks busybodyism – the canker sore of the soul America’s afflicted with today. Which takes the position that your business is everyone else’s business.
And that something else is what America is on its way to becoming.
Being compelled to pay taxes for “the common good” – as defined by others, often not even the majority – is a minor tyranny compared with being compelled to do (or not do) certain things for your own good – as defined by some stretch pants-wearing menopausal frau of the Hillary Clinton persuasion.
Or by anyone, for that matter.
Did people who actually ride motorcycles pass (impose) helmet laws? Of course not. Just as “gun control” laws have typically been passed and pushed by people who don’t know which end the bullet comes out of, much less the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip.” These people are animated by their disapproval of other people who ride motorcycles without wearing a helmet – and are determined to stamp it out. And since they themselves do not ride motorcycles – with or without helmets – the laws they impose do not affect them in any way.
Just as “gun control” laws don’t impose burdens on those looking to do the controlling.
Bet your bippie their tune would change if the laws they decree applied across the board. If, for example, it were just as felonious for el jefe Obama to surround himself with armed Praetorians as it would be (if they get their way) for you to be armed. Obama, et al, figure that if they don’t personally carry the gun, it’s not hypocritical for them to insist that you not carry one.
Just so, the “moms” and other “concerned” people insisting on helmets-or-else don’t see the tyranny because, after all, they don’t ride – so their helmets-or-else laws impose no burden on them. It merely satisfies their control-freak fetish to parent other adults. If the shoe were on the other foot, they might not like it so much.
Well, maybe they ought to try it on for size.
Where to start?
How about with their cages?
Why do they get to drive without wearing a helmet? It is objectively less “safe” than wearing one while driving. Race car drivers all wear helmets, after all.
And harnesses, too.
Much safer than the flimsy three-point seatbelts cagers are allowed to get by with in their cars.
Is there any question that head injuries and deaths would be reduced if car drivers all wore helmets?
So, how about it?
Oh. I see. It’d be inconvenient. And expensive.
So, forget it.
But bikers? I’m not a biker – says the stretch pants wearing frau to herself.
And so, why not?
Thus, those of us who ride are forced to spend hundreds of dollars for a helmet we do not want and which objectively provides limited protection that only comes into play in the event we wreck – a possibility rather than an actuality.
But it’s ok for the stretch pants set to drive their cages un-helmeted and not cinched in for “safety.” To waddle around carrying 100 pounds of heart attack-inducing, diabetes-inviting surplus flesh (that’s you, Chris Christie, you disgusting fatbody).
Wouldn’t if be refreshing if we all agreed to just leave each other alone unless someone was actually hurting someone else by his actions?
It’d be almost as pleasant as riding a bike on a warm summer day with the wind in your hair and the sun on your face, free to enjoy the moment and – for once – left the hell alone.
Throw it in the Woods?
PS: We depend on you to keep the wheels turning. If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.
For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079