An old friend e-mailed me the other day and asked for my "rant" on AB-244 -- the modification bill currently before the California Legislature. Normally (whatever that means) I save my "rant"s for people, and not things. However, my "rant"s are few, and since I control this web site, I guess I get to "rant" whenever I choose. You, on the other hand, have the absolute right to find some other topic of interest elwhere on our site, and since I am imposing nothing on anyone against their will and/or over their objection, here's what I told my friend about my feelings on AB-244 (aka: "rant"):
I believe that the helmet law should be REPEALED because to do otherwise would put us in the position of explaining why anybody should be forced to wear a helmet. In other words, those who support a modification of the current mandatory helmet law in California, as opposed to a full repeal, are in essence saying: "We admit that helmets are safe, which is why we think it's probably a good idea to require motorcycle riders under 21 years of age to wear one. We just think that once a person reaches the age of 21, they have the right to do something which we otherwise admit is unsafe."
That's idiotic. Not only does it make the person supporting the position sound stupid, but it leaves all kinds of room for the pro-mandatory helmet law people to bring up the "why should we pay for your desire to do something you admit is unsafe" argument.
The Helmet Law Defense League, along with many other "little known" (so they tell us) defenders of the rights of bikers, believe that there is a huge absence of difinitive information regarding whether or not helmets are safe for motorcyclists -- a strong school of thought that holds that helmets are actually much much more "poison than panacea" -- therefore, until someone can show that helmets are NOT DANGEROUS to motorcyclists, we do not support mandating that anyone use them . . . ever.
Moreover, California's helmet law (stop me if you've heard it) was put in place through the fraud, and founded on the bigotry, of California Assemblyman Floyd. To simply amend his actions comes way too close to endorsing them to suit many of us.
Finally, the age-of-majority is 18. Up front, we do not believe in discrimination against any adult motorcyclist. Therefore, we will continue to insist that our fellow citizens -- whether they be 18, 28 or 68 -- enjoy all the rights and liberties to which you and I are entitled. (Besides, Don Blanscet of BOLT of California pointed out the possibility that the bill is a form of a red herring which is going to allow the Governor, if he has the chance, to win over the voters under the age of 25 to the side of the Republican Party when he, Wilson, anounces that he is going to veto the bill for no other reason than because it discriminates against young adults. However, if I have my way, I will make that case before the Senate Transportation Committee myself long before it gets to Wilson. Then the Democrats can be the heroes. Oh well!)
Principle: If you snatch a $100 bill out of my hand (take any of my freedoms from me), I will not negotiate with you about how much of it (or them) you are going to give back. Some things defy compromise. Flat-footed, in-your-face, THEFT is one of them.
end rant
quig
Send Feedback
Return to HLDL home page