Helmet Laws – Disagree
Wearing a helmet may increase safety but it's like wearing a spacesuit to the beach. Statistically, far more of us suffer head injuries falling down than crashing a motorcycle. We can make motorcyclists wear helmets and feel good but the next step is to force people to wear bubble suits that protect us when we fall off our barstools. In an age of global warming, imperial wars and economic collapse, why do we legislate helmets for bikers? There are far more important things for our governments to consider.
It's not as though our brains float in a paper bag. The skull is a very effective helmet designed by God that has withstood the trials of evolution. Bikers know what it's like to ride free with the wind in their face and bugs in their teeth. All use sunglasses, some use helmets; it's a personal choice. Some state legislatures have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars trying to enforce helmet laws in a vain attempt to extinguish Hells Angels from society. Such legislation hasn't born fruit. Hells Angels wear plastic caps that meet the letter of but defy the law.
We really need to get a grip on why helmet laws were enacted. Under the guise of "safety", helmet laws were thought to be a way of ridding society of the worst motorcycle gangs. The thinking was that outlaw bikers were so opposed to wearing helmets that they would somehow integrate into conventional society and drive cars instead.
That didn't work, so should we try legislating against black clothes and motorcycle boots? This professed interest in "protecting" society from an "undesirable" element is nothing more than antics of risk-averse political wimps appealing to soccer moms.
Bad bikers, the ones whose appearance and noxious beliefs offend us, represent a statistically insignificant percentage of the American population. In the Sixties and Seventies it became fashionable for politicians to enact laws against this highly publicized but miniscule outlaw segment of society. Today, millions of environmentally aware and energy-frugal citizens ride motorcycles.
A motorcycle is one of the most efficient means of transportation in the world. Even the biggest, loudest Harleys get fifty miles per gallon and the rest get up to over a hundred miles per gallon. Yet we are encouraged by law and leadership to drive our gas-guzzling, nine-seat SUVs to work, alone, at twelve miles per gallon. Why aren't there laws against that? If one person is driving from point A to point B, why aren't there laws requiring a motorcycle or bicycle instead of the Hummer or the Suburban?
Frankly, as a rider, I know that eye protection is far more important than a helmet. When I rode my first bike in Los Angeles, I eschewed a helmet and let my hair fly. It took me about two minutes to reach for my sunglasses. If you can't see, you can't drive. Some states require eye protection and I wholeheartedly agree. When I rode more powerful bikes in Florida, a law was passed requiring helmets. A few years later, the law was rescinded. I never knew why either action took place. I didn't care, I always rode with a helmet bungeed to my seat in case I had a passenger. I knew that politicians were inclined to restrict their legislative actions to laws about helmets and smoking and jaywalking and campaign contributions instead of attending to healthcare debacles, energy crises, unwise wars, illegal immigration and presidential stupidity.
If you ride, you make choices. No vehicle is "safe" and there's no way to make a motorcycle safe. It is glorious in its power, its speed, its maneuverability and its freedom, but there's nothing between you and the asphalt but air . . . vapor. It's only a matter of time before you "lay it down." As with driving a car, accidents will happen. On a bike, an accident means you hit the road with your flesh and leave your blood on the asphalt.
That said, there's not a man or woman out there who rides a motorcycle without being intensely aware of losing skin and breaking limbs. Riding a bike is dangerous but heightens our "joie de vivre." The mere fact that it's risky attracts those who yearn for a moment of excitement on their way through an otherwise dull life. Such folks, whether accountants, nurses, or social deviants are willing to risk their lives for a beat of wild, unrestricted and unlegislated freedom. It's partly the emotional rush and partly a statement of individual choice; to feel the uncertainty and vitality of life.
Government should protect us from alien invasion, nuclear proliferation and Wall Street. We're human, for God's sake, it's not the business of government to protect us from concussion. Do we elect our governors and legislators to decide whether we should walk or run; if we should drink water or wine; whether we should have sex twice a week, if we should sink or swim, whether we should poop or get off the pot?
I think not.
