I don't think anyone was whining about the law (well, except those who are opposed to wearing a DoT approved helmet and eye protection). The rest of us were discussing what the law means and how it applies to us. HUGE difference there IMHO.
I, for one, gleaned some valuable information from all of this. I learned that it was not legislative intent for drivers of full-sized OHV's to be required to wear the aforementioned headgear. In my line of work legislative intent is extremely important. A lower level court does not have the authority to interpret the law, only go by the letter of the law. On the applant level it's a whole different story. I now understand that it is possible for me to comply with the letter of the law, but still maintain a defensible position.
That my friend is not whining; that is learning the system and how to use it to my best advantage. I was merely providing the information as I obtained it so that others could make conscious decisions with a more complete set of facts.
Saying that someone does not have to comply with the law because someone else doesn't comply with the law is whining in my book. But that's just my opinion.