Sihks must wear helmets in Ontario | GTAMotorcycle.com

Sihks must wear helmets in Ontario

CafeRay

Well-known member
http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...tion_from_ontarios_motorcycle_helmet_law.html

No word yet on Pastafarians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...is-head-in-driving-licence-photo-9673376.html

rO0ABXQAZWZ7aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pbmRlcGVuZGVudC5jby51ay9pbmNvbWluZy9hcnRpY2xlOTY3MzQzNS5lY2UvYWx0ZXJuYXRlcy93NjIwL3Bhc3RhZmFyaWFuLmpwZ31mNzc3N2YzMjB0.jpg
 
You don't say......
 
Yup. Contacted ICBC on this. This guy is trying to make a very valid and important point (for those who dont get the sarcasm and think he actually cares about a stainer).

Good for him. Canada is becoming more and more politically over correct and people are taking advantage of government's preferential treatment for religious groups. As soon as they dont like something, they cry religion and minority rights. Well the rest of us are sick of it!

Good on him for taking on this issue.
 
Someone needs to patent a turban helmet!
 
I'm glad the Ontario Government stuck to its guns on this one. I'm curious to know the role insurance companies played in this decision. Certainly insurance companies would be happy to gauge the hell (?) out of non-helmet wearing Sikh motorcyclists, but I can't see that working if the Government said it was okay to not wear a helmet. If insurance companies could impose increased premiums for no helmet, it could set a precedent for wearing/not wearing other gear. Much like snow-tire discounts for cars. It's unfortunate insurance companies don't already do this to help encourage safe motorcycling.
 
And then Sikh investors before the whole thing unravels.


Do you sit at home and only concentrate on coming up with these witty replies?
I've laughed at every single one.
 
Do you sit at home and only concentrate on coming up with these witty replies?
I've laughed at every single one.

It's easier than coming up with informed opinions. I only do shtick or raw emotion.
 
I'm glad the Ontario Government stuck to its guns on this one. I'm curious to know the role insurance companies played in this decision. Certainly insurance companies would be happy to gauge the hell (?) out of non-helmet wearing Sikh motorcyclists, but I can't see that working if the Government said it was okay to not wear a helmet. If insurance companies could impose increased premiums for no helmet, it could set a precedent for wearing/not wearing other gear. Much like snow-tire discounts for cars. It's unfortunate insurance companies don't already do this to help encourage safe motorcycling.

Insurance companies would probably not be allowed to discriminate against them if the gov't allowed them to not wear helmets. I can guarantee they would be taken to a Human Rights tribunal if they tried.

I'm glad the gov't stood its ground on this. Our laws shouldn't bend to them. If it's not compatible with their religion, they shouldn't take part.
 
Insurance companies would probably not be allowed to discriminate against them if the gov't allowed them to not wear helmets. I can guarantee they would be taken to a Human Rights tribunal if they tried.

I'm glad the gov't stood its ground on this. Our laws shouldn't bend to them. If it's not compatible with their religion, they shouldn't take part.
Couldn't agree more
 
While insurance companies would most likely not be able to alter premiums for religious non-helmet wearers,
Payouts in the event of injury would definitely be reduced.
My mother was injured in a car accident (not driving) and unfortunately admitted to the cop that she wasn't wearing her seatbelt. She was a passenger in the not-at-fault vehicle and her injuries were serious and required surgery.
The insurance company deducted 25% off of ALL her benefits, including income replacement, house keeping, attendant care, and the final settlement. What a seatbelt has to do with income replacement and how much you pay your attendant/house-keeper, I can't begin to understand. The point being, insurance companies CAN and WILL penalize for absence of safety equipment. I can definitely see an insurance company darastically cutting a Sikh man's treatment $$$ amounts and settlement in case of injury, even if the accident was completely not his fault.
 
While insurance companies would most likely not be able to alter premiums for religious non-helmet wearers,
Payouts in the event of injury would definitely be reduced.
My mother was injured in a car accident (not driving) and unfortunately admitted to the cop that she wasn't wearing her seatbelt. She was a passenger in the not-at-fault vehicle and her injuries were serious and required surgery.
The insurance company deducted 25% off of ALL her benefits, including income replacement, house keeping, attendant care, and the final settlement. What a seatbelt has to do with income replacement and how much you pay your attendant/house-keeper, I can't begin to understand. The point being, insurance companies CAN and WILL penalize for absence of safety equipment. I can definitely see an insurance company darastically cutting a Sikh man's treatment $$$ amounts and settlement in case of injury, even if the accident was completely not his fault.

She didn't choose to not wear a seatbelt because of religious beliefs.
 
The real question is why was this even a topic of debate and how much money was wasted dealing with it

its the Canadian way of being able to freely challenge things.
 

Back
Top Bottom