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

Helmet Exemption Coming for Sikh Motorcyclists in Ontario

Wasn't there a huge discussion thread about this on Alberta ? I guess we could just refer to that thread and replace Alberta with Ontario.
 
I think safety should be above religious. Well just hope the insurance doesn’t cost them an arm and a leg.
 
I too could care less if people splat their brains all over the highway. But, if you are going to exempt one group then you should exempt all groups. The gov't should just repeal the helmet law. Our heads, our brains...

Meh, their head, their brain.
 
not fair!
brown people getting more Freedom!
than old stock Canadians

off to Romper Room in 3-2-1......
 
Last edited:
My tax dollars.
If they crash and smack their head..... They better do a good job then

This. Part of me thinks there should almost be a system in place that by forgoing a helmet, OHIP doesn't cover them for brain/head trauma from a motorcycle accident. Given that likely won't be the case, hopefully insurance ends up charging them extra for this (as in, increase accident benefit costs) so both OHIP doesn't bear the cost, nor us riders who actually wear helmets.
 
I realize that this is an old topic of discussion, but it does present some interesting angles to look at. Obviously the first area to discuss would be how can you allow a group to opt out of a safety regulation when you have gov’t funded health care? The potential liability to the health care system is of course greater for the non helmet crowd compared to those wearing helmets, that’s why we have seat belt laws to reduce potential injuries and have less impact on the healthcare system when the inevitable accidents occur. Next up is the question, would insurance companies be able to charge more to insure non helmeted riders, since the likelihood of greater medical costs in the event of an accident. This is where it really gets interesting, because for the insurance company to do the only logical thing and raise premiums on non helmet wearers, they will have to discriminate between customers based on religion. Opens up a huge bag of trouble. If insurance companies are permitted to charge higher rates to cover non helmet wearing Sikhs, then does that open the door to allow other entities and individuals to discriminate between other religious, racial, sexual groups etc., when it can be proven that their “differences” cause economic impact on the entity in question. Today the answer is no, you can’t discriminate
 
I think it's a little more in line with seatbelt laws.

If you don't wear your seatbelt and get in an accident, yes you can sue for damages but you can be held partially liable for your injuries.

I can easily see helmet laws aligning with that line of thinking.

Maybe even changing the policies to indicate that not wearing helmet means you are x% liable for injuries related to head trauma etc. In the end, insurance companies already discrimin...hmmm assess risk by motorcycle type, age, experience, anti-theft devices, driving habits (through trackers if you get on that program), marital status, so whats to stop them from deeming lack of safety equipment as higher risk?

It might be more difficult to predetermine it when quoting the client (anyone can say "yes i wear a helmet") but when the accident happens and no helmet is worn, they can always pull something out of their @$$ saying that there's an addendum to a clause that states that lack of helmet = no coverage. Definitely wouldn't put it past them. Wonder how they've done it in the other provinces so far?
 
I realize that this is an old topic of discussion, but it does present some interesting angles to look at. Obviously the first area to discuss would be how can you allow a group to opt out of a safety regulation when you have gov’t funded health care? The potential liability to the health care system is of course greater for the non helmet crowd compared to those wearing helmets, that’s why we have seat belt laws to reduce potential injuries and have less impact on the healthcare system when the inevitable accidents occur. Next up is the question, would insurance companies be able to charge more to insure non helmeted riders, since the likelihood of greater medical costs in the event of an accident. This is where it really gets interesting, because for the insurance company to do the only logical thing and raise premiums on non helmet wearers, they will have to discriminate between customers based on religion. Opens up a huge bag of trouble. If insurance companies are permitted to charge higher rates to cover non helmet wearing Sikhs, then does that open the door to allow other entities and individuals to discriminate between other religious, racial, sexual groups etc., when it can be proven that their “differences” cause economic impact on the entity in question. Today the answer is no, you can’t discriminate
Pardon? You think there isn't discrimination in insurance today? Sex - my daughter pays 1/2 what my son pays. Age, I pay 1/2 what my son pays. Community Demographics & Race - I live in a community where the accident rates are very high, I pay 20% more than if I lived 10km away.

The insurance industry has a licence to discriminate.
 
I realize that this is an old topic of discussion, but it does present some interesting angles to look at. Obviously the first area to discuss would be how can you allow a group to opt out of a safety regulation when you have gov’t funded health care? The potential liability to the health care system is of course greater for the non helmet crowd compared to those wearing helmets, that’s why we have seat belt laws to reduce potential injuries and have less impact on the healthcare system when the inevitable accidents occur. Next up is the question, would insurance companies be able to charge more to insure non helmeted riders, since the likelihood of greater medical costs in the event of an accident. This is where it really gets interesting, because for the insurance company to do the only logical thing and raise premiums on non helmet wearers, they will have to discriminate between customers based on religion. Opens up a huge bag of trouble. If insurance companies are permitted to charge higher rates to cover non helmet wearing Sikhs, then does that open the door to allow other entities and individuals to discriminate between other religious, racial, sexual groups etc., when it can be proven that their “differences” cause economic impact on the entity in question. Today the answer is no, you can’t discriminate

Agreed that they should be opted out of public healthcare if the lack of helmets causes more harm. Problem is that news outlets and social media will spin sob stories and turn it into discrimination or evil government not providing for the unfortunate.

As for discriminating on insurance policies, they already do it with male vs female rates. I don't see them doing it on religion anytime soon though when they could just raise the rates universally on ALL motorcyclists to cover their costs and get less negative attention.
 
I realize that this is an old topic of discussion, but it does present some interesting angles to look at. Obviously the first area to discuss would be how can you allow a group to opt out of a safety regulation when you have gov’t funded health care? The potential liability to the health care system is of course greater for the non helmet crowd compared to those wearing helmets, that’s why we have seat belt laws to reduce potential injuries and have less impact on the healthcare system when the inevitable accidents occur. Next up is the question, would insurance companies be able to charge more to insure non helmeted riders, since the likelihood of greater medical costs in the event of an accident. This is where it really gets interesting, because for the insurance company to do the only logical thing and raise premiums on non helmet wearers, they will have to discriminate between customers based on religion. Opens up a huge bag of trouble. If insurance companies are permitted to charge higher rates to cover non helmet wearing Sikhs, then does that open the door to allow other entities and individuals to discriminate between other religious, racial, sexual groups etc., when it can be proven that their “differences” cause economic impact on the entity in question. Today the answer is no, you can’t discriminate

The right to ride a motorcycle isn't in the constitution. It's a pastime.

What if insurance focuses on more than the helmet?

Battle ready boots vs. above ankle fashion leather vs. flip flops?

Bike leather vs. textile vs. T shirt?

Full brain bucket vs. beanie helmet?

We need another cabinet post. Minister of Stupid Ideas.

People wanting stupid things put into law sign a petition.

The government commissions a multi million dollar study.

The petitioners pay for the study up front.
 
A friend I raced with when I was a member of Westwood wore a Patka under his helmet. It’s a small piece of cloth that looks a little like a doo rag... No offence to any Sikh’s. He said it fulfillled all the tenants of his religion and still allowed him to be protected.

To each their own I guess. Even if they did strike down the helmet law in Ontario I certainly wound not be going bareback.
 
Last edited:
A friend I raced with when I was a member of Westwood wore a Patka under his helmet. It’s a small piece of cloth that looks a little like a doo rag... No offence to any Sikh’s. He said it fulfillled all the tenants of his religion and still allowed him to be protected.

To each their own I guess. Even if they did strike down the helmet law in I certainly wound not be going bareback.
i think that's one of the main things that irk me with it, that there's an alternative to the regular turban ...
 
Our Pasta, who art in Colander, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.
 

Back
Top Bottom