BC Getting Tough on Helmet Laws | GTAMotorcycle.com

BC Getting Tough on Helmet Laws

I like the brief paragraph in there about the new requirements for passengers. It's like OH MY GOD THEY'RE CHANGING HELMET LAWS pppssssttttt and passengers too......
Meanwhile back in Ontario, a similar law they tried to pass caused a huge stir.
 
ABadjusterrider_5 said:
I like the brief paragraph in there about the new requirements for passengers. It's like OH MY GOD THEY'RE CHANGING HELMET LAWS pppssssttttt and passengers too......
Meanwhile back in Ontario, a similar law they tried to pass caused a huge stir.
Click to expand...

The new regulations, which come into effect June 1, also say all passengers must be able to reach foot pegs or floorboards and children who cannot reach the foot rests will not be allowed to ride as passengers
Click to expand...

This is already the case in Ontario.
 
It's important to remember they have provincially-run insurance out there..
 
I'm conflicted being a turban wearing Sikh.

I enjoy wearing my sexy Arai RX-Q and I'm glad they don't allow an exemption over here in Ontario, but on the other end, I'm also happy for my Sikh brothers/sisters in BC that have an exemption.

The Sikh community in BC isn't like the Sikh community in Ontario. They have a lot of Sikh's in power and they know how to stick together.. I'm sure they'll keep the exemption for Sikh's.
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
I would have to agree. Wasn't lost on the website commenters though.
Click to expand...


people whine about lots of things, doesn't mean its legitimate.

There are tons of religious exemptions for all sorts of things, the sikh one just doesn't apply to white people.

See the pious life exemptions in the income tax act for the devout, plus are general taxation principles for churches.
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
See the pious life exemptions in the income tax act for the devout, plus are general taxation principles for churches.
Click to expand...

I wish all that would go away, taxes would make a believer out of anyone...
 
jay-d said:
The Sikh community in BC isn't like the Sikh community in Ontario. They have a lot of Sikh's in power and they know how to stick together.. I'm sure they'll keep the exemption for Sikh's.
Click to expand...

If they fight for this, they should fight for EVERYONE, not just their own little group.

As a Canadian I could give a rats *** if anyone wears a helmet or not (the argument about shared health care is BS) so if you want to argue that it violates your religious rights, you should argue full stop that no-one should be subject to it, not just your "special group"

There, I said that in a decent way I think... maybe not :cool:
 
they have no standing to do that in a court of law. The judge could have chosen to strike down the law wholesale, that wasn't done, and that isn't the fault of the representative plantiff.

and on a practical side, that is a ridiculous requirement. What other religious group would they advocate for?

Tom's backyard church of getting around laws?
 
I'm an ATGATT rider but I'm against helmet laws. Enough nannying, let us make our own choices.
 
OpenGambit said:
they have no standing to do that in a court of law. The judge could have chosen to strike down the law wholesale, that wasn't done, and that isn't the fault of the representative plantiff.

and on a practical side, that is a ridiculous requirement. What other religious group would they advocate for?

Tom's backyard church of getting around laws?
Click to expand...

No religious group should be allowed to advocate for special consideration under the law. This is what I am trying to say. Laws apply to Canadians/British Columbians, NOT Xian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, etc...

Who are you to **** on my backyard beliefs ?
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
No religious group should be allowed to advocate for special consideration under the law. This is what I am trying to say. Laws apply to Canadians/British Columbians, NOT Xian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, etc...

Who are you to **** on my backyard beliefs ?
Click to expand...

well, good luck with that I guess.
 
religious accommodation is just the right to do what anyone else does without having to sacrifice one's religious beliefs.

for example, if a school had a no hats rule, are you saying that sikhs are getting "special consideration" just for having the ability to go to school with a turban on? or do you think its ok to just ban all sikh kids from the school in Canada?
 
OpenGambit said:
religious accommodation is just the right to do what anyone else does without having to sacrifice one's religious beliefs.

for example, if a school had a no hats rule, are you saying that sikhs are getting "special consideration" just for having the ability to go to school with a turban on? or do you think its ok to just ban all sikh kids from the school in Canada?
Click to expand...

I am not talking about dumb school rules.

I am not much for religious accommodation to be honest with you.

As for things like LEO uniform etc... I don't see a problem with providing a few options for head gear (until SWAT helmet time rolls around) that could be considered part of the standard dress, to me, that is not providing special treatment, that is providing sensible options.

Saying group X is exempt from a law that is deemed to be a serious matter (so called safety) that does NOT seem right in my Canada. Either it applies to everyone, or it applies to no-one. Not that difficult.
 
well "your" Canada's constitution says this is protected. Maybe you are talking about a different Canada, but the laws of the land disagree with you.

safety is also a huge excuse for a ton of crap, quebec with their ******** about how you can't cover your face in class in the name of "safety" is just garbage, holding the religious tolerance conference but not letting the Sikh guy in was the same.
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
well "your" Canada's constitution says this is protected. Maybe you are talking about a different Canada, but the laws of the land disagree with you.
Click to expand...

So we are not all equal under the law? Why cannot they avoid wearing a hard hat on a big construction site?
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
So we are not all equal under the law? Why cannot they avoid wearing a hard hat on a big construction site?
Click to expand...

Are you arguing with me about the text of the constitution? that is pretty pointless because you can read it yourself.

Must be easy to be anti religious accomdation for a non-religious person.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom