Helmet Exemption Coming for Sikh Motorcyclists in Ontario | Page 7 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Helmet Exemption Coming for Sikh Motorcyclists in Ontario

Anyone now can ride without a helmet . All you need to do is self identify as " Sikh" and wear a do rag . No one can tell you how you practice your religion or what parts of it you adhere to .

As I understand it... not every Sikh will be exempt.
I saw an interview with one of the original guys that rode without a helmet, took the ticket, to challenge the law... and though there is exceptions being made... He said he still won't be able to ride without a helmet because he doesn't meet the requirement for the exception. Apparently, it's not all Sikhs that are exempt...
 
I just hope that the insurance companies don't find a way to stick it to all of us because of this law. Some minor accidents can turn into moderate accidents where a helmet would have allowed a rider to walk away. Some moderate accidents will turn into fatalities because the rider wasn't wearing a helmet...in the end it is a CHOICE to ride, and IMO if you don't like the rules don't play.

Unfortunately....don't like rules...kick and scream loudly so you get your way. Bonus points for ideological/religious reasons.

From a strictly financial point... fatal is probably the best outcome for the insurance company.
 
Re: Change to Helmet Laws in Ontario

You may not be that far off. It may be similar to the question "Is you car garaged?" or "Do you install snow tires?" except it will be something like "Do you wear a helmet when riding". If you check yes and have an accident while riding without a helmet it gives them some wiggle room

I personally don't care one way or the other. If someone is stupid enough to ride without a helmet, well to each his own

Think this is the way it is going to go.
We'll soon see simple check mark if rider wears helmet while riding. If you do not check yes, much higher rates. If you check yes and end up in a collision without a helmet, simple breach of contract = no coverage.
 
Re: Change to Helmet Laws in Ontario

Think this is the way it is going to go.
We'll soon see simple check mark if rider wears helmet while riding. If you do not check yes, much higher rates. If you check yes and end up in a collision without a helmet, simple breach of contract = no coverage.

Double win for the insurance industry. Higher rates and lower payouts due to likely death.

Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
 
Re: Change to Helmet Laws in Ontario

There was no analysis of cost/benefit on this. Ford wanted support of Sikhs and he made them a promise to exempt them from helmet laws. Promise made, promise kept, as Fords so often say, or said in Rob's case.

Buck a beer through less liquor tax + a subsidy, lower gas prices through a cut in gas tax. There are no "efficiencies" here, just a populist act resulting in reduced tax revenue that will have to be made up elsewhere through a program cut yet to be announced. I expect we'll get some sense of the program cuts coming in the next 6 - 8 weeks.
 
Re: Change to Helmet Laws in Ontario

Populist Ford vs liberals jerking special interest groups. Neither are rational.
 
As I understand it... not every Sikh will be exempt.
I saw an interview with one of the original guys that rode without a helmet, took the ticket, to challenge the law... and though there is exceptions being made... He said he still won't be able to ride without a helmet because he doesn't meet the requirement for the exception. Apparently, it's not all Sikhs that are exempt...

I don't understand this.
 
Re: Change to Helmet Laws in Ontario

Have you seen the stats on this? My gut feeling is this will save the health care system money as many previously survivable crashes will result in fatalities which are relatively cheap with respect to health care dollars. I haven't looked for a study in a while to see whats out there.

A really interesting study would be the crash effectiveness of a turban. It looks like they may work well for one hit (and then fly off).

From a personal perspective, I think religious accommodation for motorcycle helmets is dumb. There is no ingrained right for us to ride. The rules are clearly defined, if you don't want to comply with the rules, don't ride a bike (or take your lumps with tickets). Alternatively, if Ontario wants to ax helmet laws, go ahead, but do it for everybody.

Religious rights are a blurry image. What if a born again Christian was getting married and wanted to experience a typical stag. Could the bar be forced to serve non-alcoholic beer and make the ladies cover up?

In Quebec a Muslim group wanted to experience a traditional maple syrup outing where the traditional meal included pork and beans. They wanted a traditional outing without the traditional food.

Separating church and state is tricky because the state must first define what a religion is and is therefore judgmentally involved.

Regarding not all Sikhs being exempt may be related to their level of observance. If they cut their hair for example. Very few religions have 100% adherence to their laws.

I have a Muslim brother in law who conned his family into believing he found a source of Halal bacon.

If you accidentally drop a turban is it safe to use again?

I'm ATGATT but textile, full face modular. A beanie is legal and no better IMO than naked.

The religious part of this bothers me more than the "Who's going to pay" bit. Riding a motorcycle is not a right and therefore should not be covered. My church of the divine light says I earn brownie points to enter heaven if I can get closer to the speed of sound so I shouldn't be punished for speeding.
 
A bit of a hijack but what I can't figure is that US States that don't mandate helmets do mandate seat belts in cars.
There's a different dynamic - motorcycle helmet laws are 'nanny laws' where seatbelts are 'public cost'.

The increase in mortality rates for un-helmeted motorcyclists offsets the extended care costs that come with survival -- it boils down to a personal choice argument, not an economic one as there is little evidence that helmets save money.

Cars on the other hand are inherently much safer so considerably more crash occupants survive. Seatbelt use dramatically lowers the after crash costs, for both insurers (the lobby) and for the public -- there is no possible way to argue that seat belts don't save significant crash care costs. You have other considerations too, like child occupants, which further strengthens the economic argument for auto seat belts.
 
I was just curious, how much protection does one of the Beanie helmets you see the cruiser crowd wearing really offer? A lot of them barely cover much of the head, and definitely not much frontal protection. It seems a Turbin isnt much far off.
 
You can review this article that delves into a well known diagram showing impact percentages. In summary, a good percentage of impacts (approaching 30%) happen at the places not covered by a beanie.

https://pages.uncc.edu/visualrhetor...etmar-ottes-motorcycle-helmet-impact-diagram/

Think you need to recheck your math.
It's closer to 60% (!!!!) that isn't covered by a beanie. I think you only totalled up one side of the diagram.
32.9% right side. 28.5% left side.

A WHOPPING 61.4% of head impacts will not be covered by a beanie helmet whatsoever.
 
I wear a helmet not for protection in a crash... I wear it to look cool, mysterious...
The hot girl driving here daddy's convertible I pull up beside to has no idea the guy on the sexy bike is a 52 year old balding father of two with periodic erectile dysfunction
 
Last edited:
Think you need to recheck your math.
It's closer to 60% (!!!!) that isn't covered by a beanie. I think you only totalled up one side of the diagram.
32.9% right side. 28.5% left side.

Oops, you're right; I only totalled up one side. Even scarier numbers!
 

Back
Top Bottom