The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.

Motorcycle Mike

Motorcycle Mike

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1048712--sikhs-say-helmets-violate-their-rights

"Safety is not an issue. It's the issue of equality, fairness and the freedom of religion," said Bal. "The government is aware of it and, as we have now handed them over a resolution, we expect a response from them."
Click to expand...

For me, I wouldn't ride without a helmet, but it should be me making that decision, not the government. In a way I wish the Sikhs would win this fight, as long as equality exists and if one can ride sans helmet, then anyone could -- although I would rarely if ever use that freedom of choice.

I completely disagree with them about the 'safety is not an issue' though -- safety trumps any freedom of religion claim any day, as far as I am concerned.
 
see if they still sing the same tune after a few crack their heads open from wrecks. next thing u know they wanna carry a blade into the airport cuz "it's their religion". law is the law. the canadian government didn't beg them to come, so if they want to live in a place where they dont have to wear helmets, they can move to a place without helmet laws, like usa.
 
Last edited:
Let it pass, don't bother me. Although, I want one of these high tech safety turbans, much better then what's on the market now :rolleyes:
 
Let them sign a waiver against not using OHIP in case they're brains end up painting the floor and it's all good with me.
 
Nah. Just put them on a special insurance rate separate from the rest of us.
Would it be more or less expensive you think?
 
Deimos said:
Let them sign a waiver against not using OHIP in case they're brains end up painting the floor and it's all good with me.
Click to expand...

Florida has it right, have to be over 21, and have health insurance. Get separate insurance apart from OHIP, ride helmetless, that wouldn't both me in the least.
 
Deimos said:
Let them sign a waiver against not using OHIP in case they're brains end up painting the floor and it's all good with me.
Click to expand...

Let them and everyone else do it. Helmets save lives, so the OHIP has to bear the recovery costs. Without a helmet chances of survival are slim. A corpse doesn't cost the OHIP anything. Heck we might even score some organs.
 
i dont think i would want to be on the rode with someone that says safety is not an issue.
 
shoe said:
We all remember this idiot....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/04/motorcycle-helmut-death.html
Click to expand...

Well, that was no helmet at all. The question here is, what sort of protective effect would a properly-wound turban provide? For at least some sorts of falls and crashes it would provide at least some protection.

Clearly a rider who chooses to go without a helmet endangers nobody's safety but the rider's own. The greater potential impact is from the societal costs that arise from rider's who die or whose injuries are exacerbated from lack of helmet use.

One such potential cost is the financial hit to our health care system. However Sikhs are a very tiny minority even if you include non-observant Sikhs. The number of strictly observant Sikhs who actually ride and who might forgo a helmet in favour of a turban would be an even smaller number, and the ones who crash resulting in medical care arising from lack of helmet would be an even smaller number. The potential hit to the province's overall health care budget wouldn't even register as a blip.

The article notes that Sikhs in British Columbia have won the right to wear a turban in place of a helmet. It would be interesting to see what the net experience is of Sikhs involved in helmetless crashes there.
 
Rina said:
i dont think i would want to be on the rode with someone that says safety is not an issue.
Click to expand...

There are two types of safety at play here. Regard for the safety of others, and regard for one's own safety. As long as there remains proper regard for the safety of others, some latitude can be given to allow a person to decide their own level of personal safety.
 
Similar to construction, where helmets are considered a 'bonafide occupational requirement' by law (as opposed to say a policeman's hat) motorcycle helmets should be a requirement.

Anyways, we are free to make our own call either way this goes.
 
Welcome to Canada. Live by our rules or get the **** out. Reminds me of when I went for an MRI just a few months ago. An Arab guy had a necklace on that I guess was religious and wouldn't take it off for the MRI machine. The MRI technician finally said look, these are the rules, if you don't take off the metal garments, you'll have to leave, so he did. Everyone just thinks they are special, and unfortunately it's not the case. I'd just hate to see one of these morons on a Super Sport, get a juicy bug off the face and slam into an innocent driver beside him.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Manhattan said:
Welcome to Canada. Live by our rules or get the **** out. Reminds me of when I went for an MRI just a few months ago. An Arab guy had a necklace on that I guess was religious and wouldn't take it off for the MRI machine. The MRI technician finally said look, these are the rules, if you don't take off the metal garments, you'll have to leave, so he did. Everyone just thinks they are special, and unfortunately it's not the case. I'd just hate to see one of these morons on a Super Sport, get a juicy bug off the face and slam into an innocent driver beside him.
Click to expand...

That's the way it should be.
 
turbodish said:
Clearly a rider who chooses to go without a helmet endangers nobody's safety but the rider's own.
Click to expand...

Two can play this game. What if the rider get's hit in the upper forehead by a rock flung up by a car/truck, is rendered partially blinded/unconscious, and veers off the road into a bunch of kids waiting for a school bus? It COULD happen. For god's sake, think of the children.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Two can play this game. What if the rider get's hit in the upper forehead by a rock flung up by a car/truck, is rendered partially blinded/unconscious, and veers off the road into a bunch of kids waiting for a school bus? It COULD happen. For god's sake, think of the children.
Click to expand...

Where are the gear Nazi's? They should be drooling over this. They freak out if you don't have your full leathers on to go to the corner store.
 
turbodish said:
Well, that was no helmet at all. The question here is, what sort of protective effect would a properly-wound turban provide? For at least some sorts of falls and crashes it would provide at least some protection.

Clearly a rider who chooses to go without a helmet endangers nobody's safety but the rider's own. The greater potential impact is from the societal costs that arise from rider's who die or whose injuries are exacerbated from lack of helmet use.

One such potential cost is the financial hit to our health care system. However Sikhs are a very tiny minority even if you include non-observant Sikhs. The number of strictly observant Sikhs who actually ride and who might forgo a helmet in favour of a turban would be an even smaller number, and the ones who crash resulting in medical care arising from lack of helmet would be an even smaller number. The potential hit to the province's overall health care budget wouldn't even register as a blip.

The article notes that Sikhs in British Columbia have won the right to wear a turban in place of a helmet. It would be interesting to see what the net experience is of Sikhs involved in helmetless crashes there.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've read this article.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...to-motorcycle-helmet-law/article671381/page1/
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Two can play this game. What if the rider get's hit in the upper forehead by a rock flung up by a car/truck, is rendered partially blinded/unconscious, and veers off the road into a bunch of kids waiting for a school bus? It COULD happen. For god's sake, think of the children.
Click to expand...

If he were to get brain damage from the rock, would he have to prove it wasn't a pre-existing condition to the insurance company?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom