Turban instead of helmet!? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Turban instead of helmet!?

mimico_polak

Well-known member
Site Supporter
In the office the last couple of days there is a new art installation of photos and descriptions...on one of them are 5-6 Sikh riders out of BC and the caption states..."the turban has so much fabric it provides ample protection against injury."

wtf....I understand the religious part of wearing a helmet but spreading ******** like this is just reckless...does that mean if a rider with a turban gets a head injury they don't qualify for govt medical care?

thoughts?
 
hmmm could this be considered a fire hazard:D

We are now in a country where common sense is replaced by everyone's personal cultural sensitivity feelings.
No photo id required to buy firearms or photo required to identify you on your CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP.
Where have you been, man?:happy2::smilebox:

RCMP had to modify their uniform also.

Are their any Sikh firefighters?
 
Just like some of the states I don't have an issue with an adult choosing to be on the road without a helmet on. Private health insurance and eye protection is usually mandatory.

I doubt it will be allowed in Ontario though
 
I used to live part time in Arizona, its a 'no helmet required' state. Its a bad idea.

There was a group booth at the last bike show working the crowd to support changing the Ontario law to helmet optional for religious reasons. The crowd didn't seem too into it.
 
If I say I'm a PastaFarian, can I ride with a bowl of spaghetti on my head?

What if it's SNELL / ECE approved Fettuccine?
 
Absolutely. If the law changes and it's legal to put a bowl on your head I say go for it.

Is riding without a helmet a bad choice? Sure it is (but I love it when I can). I have 0 problem following prov/state laws but if you want to have this one then make ALL people utilizing a roadway wear the same basic minimum protection. Otherwise it's a BS law. Bicycles can hit 60-80 kph and they are not mandated.

Good idea yes but make it mandatory for all
 
The Sikhs have been trying unsuccessfully for nearly a decade now to get the helmet laws changed to allow them to ride with only turbans instead of helmets.

It's never been successful although there is another bill on the topic currently working it's way through the system.

The "there's enough fabric to protect your head" argument is laughable at best, stupid at worst.

Its also starting to become an issue on construction sites where hard hats are mandatory.

Just like some of the states I don't have an issue with an adult choosing to be on the road without a helmet on. Private health insurance and eye protection is usually mandatory.

Except when we have socialized healthcare here, so when someone wrecks, smacks their head, and becomes a cabbage, we all get to pay for a huge majority of the healthcare results. Insurance companies don't reimburse hospitals and general healthcare - if you're lucky you'll get them to pay for long term after care, IE someone to change their diapers, etc, but when they get an infection because of bedsores and end up back in the hospital, well...it's you and I paying again, not insurance.

Unfortunately, with religious exceptions already having been made elsewhere in Canada for both hard hats and helmets I see it becoming a thing here sooner than later as well. Two things I think will result - a few crazies (Pastafarians were already mentioned) will try to use the law to enjoy the same exemptions from helmets, and eventually....a turban wearing motorcyclist or a someone on a construction site will get seriously hurt because their non-DOT approved turban didn't protect their noggin.

I'm all for religious tolerance, don't construe my comments as otherwise, but until such time that people who want these exemptions are willing and able to 100% exclude themselves from any and all socialized healthcare as a result of these choices, sorry...I can't support this, because it's going to be MY tax dollars who inevitably pay for that choice when something goes wrong.
 
We all pay for smokers, dumb people etc.

Your argument is null with me.
 
We all pay for smokers, dumb people etc.

Your argument is null with me.

Yeah, I'm against that as well.

Healthcare should be for accidents or things mostly out of your control.

Someone who makes a life choice that the know has major health repercussions in an effort to look cool (which, face it, is the reason 99.99% of smokers start smoking) should be exempt from socialized healthcare IMHO.

I know that your argument will win against my argument in reality, but hey...if we wanted to fix our healthcare woes in this country, it sure would work, wouldn't it?

But then we get into all sorts of slippery slope arguments - better to not let the cat out of the bag on these sorts of things to begin with - helmets are scientifically proven to save lives. If you don't like helmets, you don't get to ride, simple. If you don't like hard hats, you don't get to work on construction sites, simple.

In short...religion should not supersede safety laws, rules, or regulations.
 
"Someone who makes a life choice that the know has major health repercussions in an effort to look cool..."

You mean, someone like a motorcyclist?
Watch what you wish for.

... and smokers getting a bad rap again.
A smoker PAYS $10 a day in taxes (do the math) then dies young, NOT being a burden on health services.
Who costs more to the health system; someone that drops off at 55 with heart or lung failure or an octogenarian?
 
As long as they add a chin strap i dont see the problem.
Next thing you know, guys from India will want to go without helmets because they're already DOT approved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Turbans' getting a bad wrap again? What is it with religion and articles of clothing anyway? People need to chill with the fabricated belief systems already. You never hear a peep about the white mans smoking jacket. We'll, do you?
 
I made no argument for the God squad.

I said as an adult I ought to be allowed to make a bad choice, and that I support no helmet as long as the legal law provides for it.


I also support abortion and the right to terminate your own life. Let me live as I want
 
Aborted fetus was not your own life. But I do support terminating it.
 
In the office the last couple of days there is a new art installation of photos and descriptions...on one of them are 5-6 Sikh riders out of BC and the caption states..."the turban has so much fabric it provides ample protection against injury."

wtf....I understand the religious part of wearing a helmet but spreading ******** like this is just reckless...does that mean if a rider with a turban gets a head injury they don't qualify for govt medical care?

thoughts?
Talk to the curator and ask them for evidence. Will at least get them thinking about their responsibility for s*** they say.
 
Turbans' getting a bad wrap again? What is it with religion and articles of clothing anyway? People need to chill with the fabricated belief systems already. You never hear a peep about the white mans smoking jacket. We'll, do you?

I'm white, yet do not own a smoking jacket.
...off to the suit store I go!
 
I'm white, yet do not own a smoking jacket.
...off to the suit store I go!

Someone said to avoid Mike's tents clothing store for your ethnic background :lmao:

Why do we have seat belts in cars and all of the other safety restraints/protection items in cars?
Those states without helmet laws seem to be in a conflict. Since they make laws for cars to have a minimum level of protective devices then turns around and tells the bike owner (who also owns a car) they do not have to wear a helmet on their bike but MUST wear a seat seat belt in their car.:confused:

As for the smoking debate, smoking was a social thing that was very common and mainstream...once they realize that it's harmful....they started to change the perception that smoking is bad now therefore over time they try to phase out the smokers. Smoking IS ADDICTIVE (drug addictive) but wearing a helmet is not.

As someone noted the prices/taxes on tobacco products are VERY HIGH meaning do we want the govt to apply that logic and charge those not wearing helmets thousands of dollars to get license plates and stickers along with VERY HIGH insurance rates for no helmet.

I don't believe any right minded EMS/doctors would refuse treatment to someone not wearing a helmet therefore the idea of having those people sign a waiver does not make sense.

As for bicycles, it's the law that kids under 16 are supposed to wear one (ever see that enforced?) but I guess once you are past 16 your bones change into titanium.
 
Pastafarians aren't crazies. It's a logical extension of applying religious exclusions or allowances to any religion. If it makes you think "oh that's stupid, but wait a minute..." then it's worked. My favourite are the drivers licence photos of people with obligatory strainers on their heads due to religious observances.
 

Back
Top Bottom