Turbans vs Helmets | GTAMotorcycle.com

Turbans vs Helmets

Blackfin

Blackfin

Well-known member
Site Supporter
So there's this again:

http://canadamotoguide.com/2016/05/...nce-again-lobbying-for-sikh-helmet-exemption/

This time around the proposal has the backing of both the NDP and the PCs (!!).

Thoughts:

a) Riding a motorcycle is a privilege, not a right. It is also not a required way for anyone to get around; bicycles, cars or public transportation can easily replace the motorcycle as a way to get around (and most often do during the winter months in most of Canada...) If you need to choose between a hobby (especially one that is so comparatively dangerous) and the mandatory tenets of your religion, one would think the religion would take precedence.

b) How will insurance work if this goes through? I don't think it will -- at least not while the Libs are in power -- but suppose it did: Will insurance companies charge gazillions for SABs for those that opt to ride without helmets (i.e. Sikhs) and will we see then HRC proceedings claiming discrimination? Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

c) Will Pastafarians be allowed to replace DOT-approved helmets with pirate hats and/or colanders? If this Sikh exemption is allowed expect all manner of exemption seekers based on "religion".

d) According to this site, the reasons for Sikhs wearing a turban include "is to take care of the hair, promote equality, and preserve the Sikh identity." It also states:

"Sikhs do not cut their hair as a respect towards God and the turban protects the hair from dust. Some people might ask the question that if Sikhs cover their hair on head, why don’t they cover their beard? Dirt is not a big problem for beard. The beard can be cleaned very easily while washing the face. Covering of the head by turban also symbolizes respect towards God. People form many other religions including Hindus, Jews, and traditionally many Christians including Catholics cover their head while visiting their church ... Since Sikhs believe God to be present everywhere, they cover their head not just in church but everywhere else as well."

If this is about covering the head out of respect for God and protecting the hair from dirt and bugs and ****, why can't the helmet serve that purpose while a Sikh is out on their ride?


Would that this politician were fighting for motorcyclists to be able to filter or use HOV lanes instead of being granted the option of being front-running Darwin Award candidates in the name of religion.
 
Even if you wanted to extend the helmet exemption on compassionate, religious or humanist grounds it would be foolhardy to do so because these types* of people are just scam artists. Granting their wishes will make them smirk at you behind your back, not respect you for your even handedness.

*politicians
 
I wonder if MPP Jagmeet Singh is a GTAM member and would care to chime in here?
 
I dont believe in making any exceptions to any laws based on religion.
 
Your helmet is to protect you. If you choose not to wear a helmet, that's your problem. To me the feds have no business telling us what gear to wear to begin with.

Now since there are laws stating we have to wear helmets, there should be no exemptions because as you point out other religions can just chime in and be exempt while non-religious people are not. However given the political climate don't expect any resistance because it would be political or business suicide.

Your bike insurance is to (mostly) cover damage to others or the bike, not your head. There might be an argument for higher life insurance premiums, but don't give those companies any ideas. I'm sure they'd like an increase just for being on a motorcycle.
 
smc said:
Your bike insurance is to (mostly) cover damage to others or the bike, not your head. There might be an argument for higher life insurance premiums, but don't give those companies any ideas. I'm sure they'd like an increase just for being on a motorcycle.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The liability, property damage and other such elements of a motorcycle insurance policy are practically rounding errors (individually) compared to the Standard Accident Benefits coverage. For example, my current policy breaks down the premium costs roughly as follows:

Liability: $90
Property Damage: $2
Uninsured Auto: $22
Direct Compensation: $36
Comprehensive: $69
Collision/Upset: $110
Family Protection: $16
Accident Benefits: $715

In my case, SAB represents more than 67% of my entire insurance premium. I can't imagine what would happen to the SAB portion of an insurance premium for a rider that, hypothetically speaking, opts out of helmet use in favor of religious symbolism. I'm also having a hard time imagining how such an increase could pass muster with the HRC given their track record. Then again, the SCC has already quashed the notion of discrimination in the setting of insurance premiums so perhaps they won't have a case.

Then again -- again --, that case involved a white male and it seems that the courts and HRC are much more sensitive to visible minorities and religious cases nowadays so who knows...
 
Pastafarian ride to Queen's Park wearing collanders !!!!!

Obi-Canuel-a-Pastafarian.jpg
 
Last edited:
We always bend over for the Sikhs and other religions in Canada, it's just a matter of time.
 
Will they introduce chin straps to turbans ?
Because I can't see it staying on your head at highway speeds.
 
mikbusa said:
I dont believe in making any exceptions to any laws based on religion.
Click to expand...
agreed.
there are always going to be laws that one group wont like for whatever reason, but it doesnt mean that they should be changed.

now on a serious note, will they be subject to similar charges as a truck carrying a unsafe load or unsecured load if their head coverings are not safely secured and can potentially come off causing accidents? the head coverings are sometimes very large wraps, i sure dont want to have one come off on the highway and hit me on a bike or hit and cover the windshield of my vehicle.
will it be a common issue? probably not but it is a issue that can arise.

i was also told once by a Sikh who i am friends with that there are turbans that fit under helmets that are DOT approved, and the turbans meet their religious requirements.

if they do get this passed i dont honestly care as long as it does not affect me financially or anyone elses safety.
so i think they should have to disclose their choice to not wear helmets to their insurance and on their drivers abstract somehow and that should be reflected in their rates. or they just do not qualify for any AB claims resulting directly from head injuries.
 
It went through in BC. It will go through here.

Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk
 
EaZ8 said:
i was also told once by a Sikh who i am friends with that there are turbans that fit under helmets that are DOT approved, and the turbans meet their religious requirements.
Click to expand...

This point came up during the last go around on the matter. The Sikh in question doesn't want to wear helmet compliant tubans, that would be too easy, he wants to change the law for his special interest. He was shouted down, the request jeered from all corners of the interweb, yet here he is again floating the same ****(no pun intended). This tells you all you need to know about these types of people*. I would deny this request solely based on his inability to take no for an answer. He should go back to representing all of his constituents in important matters of governance.

*politicians
 
inreb said:
This point came up during the last go around on the matter. The Sikh in question doesn't want to wear helmet compliant tubans, that would be too easy, he wants to change the law for his special interest. He was shouted down, the request jeered from all corners of the interweb, yet here he is again floating the same ****(no pun intended). This tells you all you need to know about these types of people*. I would deny this request solely based on his inability to take no for an answer. He should go back to representing all of his constituents in important matters of governance.

*politicians
Click to expand...

Brutal.
Hope it gets shut down fast.

I do not believe in changing laws for religion.
I know of a school that doubled as some sort of Muslim church on weekends(still does to some extent) where after a investigation they discovered they were "sacrificing " animals there during their prayers or whatever they did in there.

Stupid thing about them even owning the building is they were originally the lowest bidder on it under the Catholic and public school boards, claimed they didn't get it because of discrimination and all of a sudden it was theirs.
That was 20 is years ago.
 
Is this now becoming Animal Farm instead of 1984? Are some people considered more equal than others?
 
Don't want to wear pants because I'm a practising WDN (Waste Down Nudist) Also need tax exemption asap.
 
I'm thinking about starting the Church of the Smith & Wesson. I believe I should have every right to pray to the heavenly fathers, Smith & Wesson. A major symbol of my faith is of course my Smith & Wesson hand gun that I believe will protect in this life and the afterlife.
The above is written in sarcastic font!

I would suggest if wearing your turban is so important you may have to give up some things in life i.e. Motorcycling & Hamburgers etc.
 
I really don't care. If a Sikh wants to ride a bike with their turban, so be it.

No helmet? Fine by me.

But it it doesn't color match with the bike and gear, I will ridicule the mofo as the door is wide open!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom