Personally, I have no problem with helmet laws anymore so than seatbelt laws. Using the argument that Helmet laws are the first step to eliminating motorcycles, or telling us what kind to ride, I could apply that same argument to seatbelts. By now (since seatbelt laws are well over a decade old), I should be forced to drive a 3 cylinder 65mpg econobox with all of the burning hot soul of an electric kitchen knife. But I am not! I can go out and by a 11mpg Suburban, 200mph Lambo, or 40 year old emissions spewing antique, so long as I have a seatbelt. I still don't have GPS on my car coupled with a transmitter so that big brother can watch my every move, nor, must I register with the local precinct when moving or traveling. Sorry, if the state I'm in starts mandating helmets (I wear one by choice currently, and would anyway), I am not going to sell my bike, or move to another state. I'm just going to keep riding my bike with my helmet on, just as I did before the law was passed. Start passing outrageously high property taxes aimed at making it impossibly expensive to motorcycle, or laws that restrict what/when or where I can ride, then we're talking about infringements that I would have to reconsider. But, sorry, I just don't buy the slippery-slope argument, that helmet laws are just the first step in a move to grab our bikes. There are 27 states that are helmet-law free, but there are 23 states remaining that have had helmet laws for years, and they haven't taken their bikes away yet. Yes, it should be a choice, but I'm not giving up riding if they pass a law, any more than I give up driving my car because our state chooses to tax me a couple hundred bucks every year on my car and makes me put my kids in car seats or where a seatbelt.
