Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by Anywhereness, Dec 9, 2012.
This post is worthless without pictures.
Wraith, in the US, that old lady could post up on Facebook that she thinks you are a communist and a thief, and you wouldn't be able to do jack shit about it. In Germany, she knows that all she can do is waggle her finger. Just point back and smile. Being different is hard work. Some days, it's freaking exhausting.
There's complete bullshit in both countries, for sure. The entire German school system reeks of favoritism and misery to me. But it does not require university to have a good career and paycheck in the end. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The German driving license system, OTOH, is a gold standard, IMO. Thankfully, I could afford Fahrschule. Most people who need to drive in the US (due to lack of transit) could not afford a Führerschein, so we put them on the road with an eye test, 20 questions of theory, and a signature. They go to work and pay taxes, and life is good. Not perfect, but good.
Lots of people want perfection, to the point that good enough isn't good enough. From my perspective, a helmet law is the least intrusive option in the sea of potential limitations on the riding of motorcycles. The restrictions could go a few different ways, and each one has more negative implications and effects on the hobby, namely, much higher costs.
I'm ok with a helmet law. And I'm one of the purple (pink, actually) hair crowd, going back to 3rd grade when I got my first dress code violation for wearing a blouse with illegal ruffles. I guess I got hooked. I'm thinking about blue for my next hair. I liked it last time......
What I want is for a lot more of people minding their own business and not thinking they have the right to tell everyone else what to do. That's a problem that is a LOT bigger than helmet laws, but helmet laws are a symptom of that problem. I work to fight against that problem in a wide variety of ways, whenever I encounter it.
Maybe it's true that "a helmet law is the least intrusive option in the sea of potential limitations on the riding of motorcycles", but why accept ANY of those limitations? When you accept a limitation, you accept the whole idea that it's OK for others to put limitations on you and your choices, and you have then ceded the entire principle. You are no longer standing for individual rights and liberty; you have allowed the those who wish to restrict your rights to define the playing field and the rules, and you will lose your rights as a result.
We each will have some things we care about, and others we don't, but we ALL need to support each other in ALL the fights for ALL of our rights; otherwise we all lose them one by one. I don't ride dirt, but I contribute and write letters and support the rights of dirtbikers, because it's the right thing to do, and because I want their support in return for the rights of sportbikers if/when those come under attack. This same principle applies to the rights of gays and Christians and atheists and gun owners and Muslims and immigrants and women and everyone else.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Otherwise, you wind up like BobbySands up there, with no concept of freedom, and thinking that everything you do is subject to some government "cost/benefit analysis" to decide for you whether or not you are qualified to make that decision for yourself. No thanks.
YUP! Nailed it.
Except that looks like a guy in drag
Gummee, if you're advocating helmet laws exclusively for trannies, the LGBTQIA community is gonna
be on your ass like flies on shit.
Even the 'gender-confused' or whatever the current PC term is need their heads protected.
'Cause no matter what your mom used to say, your head is NOT as hard as a rock. I've got the scars to prove it. (but I'm not any kind of 'gender-confused. )
I'm glad you cleared that up.
As usual, a Shakespearean effort.
Well done sir.
If you're ever in Western NC I'd be happy to buy you a beer.
Except that Shakespeare didn't mangle the English language.
Re-read the first sentence.
it seems to me that at the least, eye protection should be mandatory in the same way that an uncracked windshield is mandatory. Especially on bikes with less wind protection, I can't believe riders with no helmet and no goggles or glasses can see adequately to maneuver safely at high speeds due to windblast alone.
if the public doesn't need protection from itself, why bother with licensing in the first place?
Because the public needs protection from others.
That's the same thing as the public needing protection from itself.
Drivers are licensed so the privilege can be taken away when someone fucks up.
An individual should be allowed to do something that's hazardous to himself as long as it's not hazardous to anyone else.
Yes, and someone trying to squint through 70 mph of wind and rain on a naked bike in the oncoming lane is hazardous to me.
here in NH, eye protection IS mandatory, helmets are not
eye protection can be in the form of goggles, safety glasses, helmet visor or windshield (I think has to extend 14" above handlebar ?) I'm covered wearing prescription glasses
It's a bit awkward, but it parses correctly. Shakespeare, OTOH, mangled the English language extensively. Indeed it was part of his artfulness, and done at a level that still has rarely been approached by others. Certainly not I.
Eye protection is mandatory in most states. And it has a much better rationale behind it, as a person riding without being able to see is a hazard to others. I'm not very upset about eye protection laws, as those address the correct subject for a law -- when someone is harming or endangering someone else; which is not the case with helmet laws which are promarily designed to protect someone from himself.