My thing is, when you crash, you dont get to decide how/where you will land, Gravity does, if your lucky, you walk away, if not...oh well
you might land really awkwardly, or in a dangerous manner
A full face proper helmet is the only way to go(for me at least)
Religion is a right. Riding a motorcycle is a privilege.
If the rules of the former prevent you from adhering to the rules for the latter then you choose which is more important to you; either follow your religion or the rules of what you desire to do.
The expectation that society must bow to silly religious rites (any rite from any religion) is sickening and divisive.
Religion is a right. Riding a motorcycle is a privilege.
If the rules of the former prevent you from adhering to the rules for the latter then you choose which is more important to you; either follow your religion or the rules of what you desire to do.
The expectation that society must bow to silly religious rites (any rite from any religion) is sickening and divisive.
I really don't think the decision is based on religion, it based on the muscular ability of well organized lobby - winning this concession is more about vote pandering from the larger Sikh community than it is accommodating the tiny fraction of Sikh riders inconvenienced by removing and donning a turban to ride.
In a way I applaud their ability to organize and punch above their weight. Something the MC community leaders have never been able to do.
I really don't think the decision is based on religion, it based on the muscular ability of well organized lobby - winning this concession is more about vote pandering from the larger Sikh community than it is accommodating the tiny fraction of Sikh riders inconvenienced by removing and donning a turban to ride.
In a way I applaud their ability to organize and punch above their weight. Something the MC community leaders have never been able to do.
The last mayor of brampton was elected because he got like 3000 votes? or was it 8?
In a city of 600000.
I never met or knew patrick brown, all I know is, he showed up at the last minute, and went around shaking a lot of hands and taking pictures in the sikh temples, and now he's mayor.
Too much hate over this religious exemption. Time would be much better spent focusing on the poor people spending years (or lifetimes) in long term care facilities because of bad brain injuries.
I've never met a Sikh person that i didn't like.
I've met a lot of folks wearing beanies with "loud pipes save lives stickers"that i couldn't wait to get away from.
Many criticize the Sikhs for not wearing helmets because in Ontario the public must pay for their injuries or rehabilitation. But this ruling should be rescinded because no one is thinking of those poor Sikh women who do not wear turbans. They must wear helmets! This is sexist and discriminatory and must be corrected immediately.
I bet our insurance premiums rise next year as a result of this exemption. The actuaries in the insurance industry will be all over this as a valid excuse to increase rates. Riding without a helmet increases the risk of a fatality. Someones insurance will be pay out when there is a fatality.
I bet our insurance premiums rise next year as a result of this exemption. The actuaries in the insurance industry will be all over this as a valid excuse to increase rates. Riding without a helmet increases the risk of a fatality. Someones insurance will be pay out when there is a fatality.
I still think we shouldnt be fighting or care about motorcycle insurance because...well I read that thread last year, and we're not even on the radar of insurance execs it seems. An afterthought at best.
FYI its totally do-able to ride with a turban and a full face helmet on, I know guys who do it, they value their brains, its a pain in the ass, but doable.
will this be a question on an insurance application:
will you be wearing a helmet during the operation of this motor vehicle on public roads?
check one and only one box; yes or no
if no you will be subject to a surcharge
will this be a question on an insurance application:
will you be wearing a helmet during the operation of this motor vehicle on public roads?
check one and only one box; yes or no
if no you will be subject to a surcharge
As much as that's seems like a reasonable question, I have doubts that it can be asked. Basically they are asking you to provide your religion (as a no automatically makes you sikh). If the revised law allowed all riders to choose whether to wear helmets, I would expect that question on the applications.
You guys really think the underwriters care about this little detail?
Motorcyclists are so small that we're not even relevant to them,
pretty sure they just use car stats to come up with our policies/premiums
You guys really think the underwriters care about this little detail?
Motorcyclists are so small that we're not even relevant to them,
pretty sure they just use car stats to come up with our policies/premiums
They seem to notice us when it comes to risk assessment and premiums.
Just being a motorcyclist results in large premiums due to the risk of injury. Look at your policy and see how much of the total premium are statutory accident benefits. If insurance companies can already discriminate for "bona fide" reasons (see Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/255 (S.C.C.)) then I see no reason when they can't discriminate on the basis of religion if some superstition results in a higher risk level for a rider.
The powers that be figured out that the religious accommodation aspect, as well as the political points scored in the Sikh community, overroad any concern about safety or consistency of rules application. Should any of us be surprised at this?
They seem to notice us when it comes to risk assessment and premiums.
Just being a motorcyclist results in large premiums due to the risk of injury. Look at your policy and see how much of the total premium are statutory accident benefits. If insurance companies can already discriminate for "bona fide" reasons (see Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/255 (S.C.C.)) then I see no reason when they can't discriminate on the basis of religion if some superstition results in a higher risk level for a rider.
Not really. Insurance companies in Ontario do not look at the details of MC claims to form policies and rates, they are set based on demographics they see in the car business. They would prefer not to offer MC insurance at all -- the market is provincial and too small and they don't always how they are making or losing money. Most only offer insurance because because it's required to capture bundles of home & auto.
There is lots of crash data available, Quebec insurers are required to publish their premium and payout data, as are many states. In areas where the data is public, it's studied and rates generally reflect risk. In Ontario, rates are not based on risk for motorcycle insurance.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
