Turbans vs Helmets | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Turbans vs Helmets

If the law is changed, I don't have a problem with it...so long as the updated law also stipulates that by choosing to ride without a helmet you thereby accept all costs associated with your failure to wear a helmet.

I'm not interested in paying for anyones potential lifetime of hospital expenses via my taxes, nor increased insurance rates to take care of a vegetable because of this sort of idiocy.
 
PrivatePilot said:
If the law is changed, I don't have a problem with it...
Click to expand...

I like the idea of forcing those that go this route to pay their own way but the sad fact is that very few people's estates that would be liquid enough to cover the lifetime of care needed after brain injuries associated with one's head hitting asphalt or sheetmetal at 50kph.

Perhaps we should look at it this way: Lot of other people, non-motorcycle riders, probably wish all of us motorcyclists would take on that financial burden because they don't want to pay for our hospital stays and injuries and care because of our choice of hobby.

I dunno. I dislike the special interest assault on our Canadian cultural identity and legal sovereignty. I dislike the erosion of common sense which is roughly akin to throwing out scientific facts and teaching creationism in science class, purely for religious reasons. There's a slippery-slope angle as well; if this religious exemption is made then don't all religious exemptions need to be accommodated?
 
Okay, just read the whole thread.
What i think? Helmet is a piece of equipment.

Like a helmet on a construction site.
Like an astronaut suit.
Like a fireman.
Like in the army.
Like football.
Like nhl.

If you want to partake in an activity under a certain jurisdiction, follow the rules of engagement. It was deemed necessary that in our hostile-to-bike environment, helmets be worn for safety reasons. Especially since health is a public matter.

It's like saying that a religion stops you from using traction control, or a seat belt, or to put your baby in a baby seat.
Safety/health concerns comes before freaking belief.

This is why some people get SUED for negligence for not vaccinating their kid or for not bringing their kid in the hospital thinking prayers will cure them of a disease.

The thread should be renamed personal belief vs common sense
 
Last edited:
Blackfin said:
I like the idea of forcing those that go this route to pay their own way but the sad fact is that very few people's estates that would be liquid enough to cover the lifetime of care needed after brain injuries associated with one's head hitting asphalt or sheetmetal at 50kph.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, then instead of that....insurance companies need to do as someone else suggested - write into their policies that if a rider elects to not wear a helmet under these proposed exemptions the accident benefits portion of their policies goes up exponentially, so instead of that $500/year rate for a cruiser they get a $10,000/year rate instead. Don't like it? Don't ride. Or put on a helmet.

Riding still remains a privilege, not a right. They don't' have to like it, but it potentially solves the problems in two ways - Most wouldn't pay it and therefore wouldn't even be exposed to the risk, and those who do decide to pay it, well, if they do become a statistic at least their contributions as a group will offset the hit for the rest of us.

FWIW, Sikhs are generally pretty cool people, I've nothing against the religion or anything like that...but I'm looking at purely from a risk standpoint, as well as a "your bad decision affects me too, not just you" perspective.
 
PrivatePilot said:
Fair enough, then instead of that....insurance companies need to do as someone else suggested - write into their policies that if a rider elects to not wear a helmet under these proposed exemptions the accident benefits portion of their policies goes up exponentially, so instead of that $500/year rate for a cruiser they get a $10,000/year rate instead. Don't like it? Don't ride. Or put on a helmet.
Click to expand...

That sounds good to me.

FWIW, Sikhs are generally pretty cool people, I've nothing against the religion or anything like that...but I'm looking at purely from a risk standpoint, as well as a "your bad decision affects me too, not just you" perspective.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
LePhillou said:
Okay, just read the whole thread.
What i think? Helmet is a piece of equipment.

Like a helmet on a construction site.
Like an astronaut suit.
Like a fireman.
Like in the army.
Like football.
Like nhl.

If you want to partake in an activity under a certain jurisdiction, follow the rules of engagement. It was deemed necessary that in our hostile-to-bike environment, helmets be worn for safety reasons. Especially since health is a public matter.

It's like saying that a religion stops you from using traction control, or a seat belt, or to put your baby in a baby seat.
Safety/health concerns comes before freaking belief.

This is why some people get SUED for negligence for not vaccinating their kid or for not bringing their kid in the hospital thinking prayers will cure them of a disease.

The thread should be renamed personal belief vs common sense
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
agreed. its the law and i dont want this one changed for any reason...but if it does get changed for some stupid reason i just dont want it affecting me.
but where will this stop? at what point they will be looking to have a exemption to wearing a hockey helmet in a league?...or whatever other activity that needs a helmet. (dont bicycles need helmets if you are under a certain age?)
there is a trickle affect with everything, financial and setting a precedent that Canada will cave to more things based on the same argument.
this law is here for safety, dont like it dont ride or dont partake in whatever activity requires a helmet.
 
Last edited:
PrivatePilot said:
Fair enough, then instead of that....insurance companies need to do as someone else suggested - write into their policies that if a rider elects to not wear a helmet under these proposed exemptions the accident benefits portion of their policies goes up exponentially, so instead of that $500/year rate for a cruiser they get a $10,000/year rate instead. Don't like it? Don't ride. Or put on a helmet.

Riding still remains a privilege, not a right. They don't' have to like it, but it potentially solves the problems in two ways - Most wouldn't pay it and therefore wouldn't even be exposed to the risk, and those who do decide to pay it, well, if they do become a statistic at least their contributions as a group will offset the hit for the rest of us.

FWIW, Sikhs are generally pretty cool people, I've nothing against the religion or anything like that...but I'm looking at purely from a risk standpoint, as well as a "your bad decision affects me too, not just you" perspective.
Click to expand...

The noun definition of privilege would indicate otherwise. The verb definition I'm on the fence about. But the fact is, if you meet all of the qualifications, nobody has the power or authority to deny you the right, privilege, ability, desire etc to ride. So, functionally, it's a right. To keep perpetuating the myth that riding/driving is a "privilege" as we understand it is just sloganism. I don't know if sloganism is a word but it would be my privilege to use it.
 
Last edited:
Just came up with a win/win million dollar idea : start a new helmet company called "Turban". Now anyone can wear a Turban when they ride. Bam! Problem solved. Time to #SharkTankThatShit ?

Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk
 
PrivatePilot said:
If the law is changed, I don't have a problem with it...so long as the updated law also stipulates that by choosing to ride without a helmet you thereby accept all costs associated with your failure to wear a helmet.

I'm not interested in paying for anyones potential lifetime of hospital expenses via my taxes, nor increased insurance rates to take care of a vegetable because of this sort of idiocy.
Click to expand...

Makes sense but using the argument of choices we make you open the door to smokers paying for their own lung cancer treatments, truck drivers with sedentary lifestyle problems, loud earphone users, heavy drinkers picking buying their own new kidneys etc.

Truckers would be healthier if they all stopped every half hour or so and walked around the rig a couple of times. Think 401 in February.

just jerking your chain
 
Motorcycles should be BANNED. They are not necessary. We end up paying too much medical costs for riders that could be travelling in the safety of a four wheel cage or public transit.

*Sarcasm above.
 
I recall reading somewhere sometime that there is more than one way to wrap a turban.
Back in the sword and shield era, Sikh soldiers would wear a layer of steel mesh inside the turban to protect their heads.
In the same tradition, perhaps Sikh motorcyclists could wrap a layer of Kevlar for protection under the outer turban ;-)

I don't really agree with helmet laws or seat belt laws in the first place. Even without the government telling us what to do, the laws of natural selection still apply to anyone who tries to go against the odds.
 
DejaVu said:
I recall reading somewhere sometime that there is more than one way to wrap a turban.
Back in the sword and shield era, Sikh soldiers would wear a layer of steel mesh inside the turban to protect their heads.
In the same tradition, perhaps Sikh motorcyclists could wrap a layer of Kevlar for protection under the outer turban ;-)

I don't really agree with helmet laws or seat belt laws in the first place. Even without the government telling us what to do, the laws of natural selection still apply to anyone who tries to go against the odds.
Click to expand...
Problem with society is once you have some idiots that don't have guidelines to follow, then you have to not only pay for them but they might also endanger you to a certain extent.
A guy not wearing a helmet that receives a rock in his face crashes into a car's windshield and kills someone, then its not just darwin for the motorcyclist but the other driver that gets affected by it.

And with the number of rocks and stuff that i get when riding (id say at least 2-3 per season) and without counting the flying roadkill of bugs... that would get in my eyes, i think the risk is there and not just for that rider but for others.
 
Who cares! If someone wants to ride without a helmet, then let them be...

This nonsense about higher rates and health care costs.. are just that.. nonsense. A couple of cracked heads a year aren't going to have any real impact on either. I hope those bringing up that argument are living very healthy lifestyles and do everything to minimize risk in their lives.
 
raginduck said:
A couple of cracked heads a year aren't going to have any real impact on either.
Click to expand...

My wife works in the medical field, and trust me, when someone in their 20's-30's suffers a traumatic brain/head/spinal injury and is a vegetable for the rest of their lives, requires round the clock care for potentially 60-70 more years... you are talking tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to care for that person for the rest of their days.

When the average insurance policy is anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, suddenly your statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The same as how home insurance goes up after a rash of claims for whatever reason, the same will happen with MC insurance of a bunch of squids take advantage of helmet laws being abolished and suddenly end up as turnips. The money comes from somewhere - guess what...that'll be you and me.
 
Last edited:
raginduck said:
Who cares! If someone wants to ride without a helmet, then let them be...

This nonsense about higher rates and health care costs.. are just that.. nonsense. A couple of cracked heads a year aren't going to have any real impact on either. I hope those bringing up that argument are living very healthy lifestyles and do everything to minimize risk in their lives.
Click to expand...

It's not about the helmet. It never was. It's about changing a law to accommodate a select few. Based on religious grounds. And it's not even about that so much as the barn door it opens.
 
The bill's sponsor should be fighting for things to aid all motorcyclists and to make their endeavors safer (e.g. filtering, HOV lane use etc) rather than selfishly pandering to his own personal demographic...again.
 
Blackfin said:
The bill's sponsor should be fighting for things to aid all motorcyclists and to make their endeavors safer (e.g. filtering, HOV lane use etc) rather than selfishly pandering to his own personal demographic...again.
Click to expand...
YES
THIS
a thousand times over!

But in the end, that MP or whoever doesnt give a flying rat **** about motorcycles, they never do. They care about religious demographic vote.

I'm sure Harleys are gonna start a cult... although they almost technically already are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom