Wind

In the precambrian I was a biker.

I've prolly mentioned it before.

I recall the ferocious debates about helmets.

Me?  I've almost always worn one.  Why?  Because if I went without a facesheild, I'd dehydrate from my eyes watering.  A pair of sunglasses just doesn't work for me.

That means I wear a full-face helmet when I ride.

That style of helmet has the additional advantage of protecting my ears from the buffeting of the wind.  The wind gets LOUD.

I've noticed that a full face helmet is not stylish on certain, ahem, styles of bike.

The Harley folks don't wear full face helmets.  The crotch-rocketeers don't wear skull-skids.

Believe you me, you take a lot of crap on a ride from Minneapolis to Sturgis when you're on a Sportster and ensconced in Bell's finest.

I have always been a "let those who ride decide" person though.  It might be my very first libertarian thought.  I think they offer a degree of protection that is worth the cost and I will wear one, dammit.  If you disagree, then go without.  It's your skull.

Back to wind though.

I've noticed that packs of "bikers", stylishly appointed on their Harleys, rarely get about 50 miles per hour.  I think it's because the wind noise is hurting their ears.  Notice the quotes around "biker"?  I think that this subcategory of rider bought the Harley because it was fashionable and purchases matching accoutrements for the same reason.  Never has the term "fashion victim" been more apt.

I've always felt that these people are missing at least two thirds of the experience of riding.  Despite being on the bike, they are driving a two wheel car and not riding.  And I can't put it into words what I think they are missing.  They're certainly more "wind in the hair, bugs in the teeth" than I was with my helmet, but they don't seem to be riding for the ride.  They seem to be making a fashion statement.