Turban instead of helmet!? | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Turban instead of helmet!?

There is no excuse for forced helmet use other than pure, outright paternalism. You could eliminate almost every right to take a risk based on the social healthcare burden argument. It's not a legitimate excuse. Like in the State of Michigan, we could simply make people who choose to ride without a helmet pay more for insurance. It is that simple. Same for every other risky exercises like smoking, skydiving, bungee jumping, white water rafting and... motorcycling.

Moreover, it should not be assumed that anyone is automatically giving up all their constitutional freedoms simply by exercising the so-called "privilege" of using the public highway. Your rights are your rights, and if you don't have the right to take a personal risk, you don't have a free society.
 
Inreb - I only said I support abortion.

Livewir3 - I don't care what you think, you have a right to think whatever you want

D - I'd argue that putting on a helmet is addictive, or at least support that claim from the amount of money I've spend on M/Cs.

I'm not arguing with anyone, it's just what I believe. Seat belts are another issue. I don't think they ought to be mandatory, but since they are I use em.

Simple.
 
This is why I'm a programmer and avoid working with people. No one is really right or wrong in this thread and it's confusing as ****.

I'm just gonna eat popcorn.
 
Also, why bother installing windshields on cars?
What if someone wants to opt out of that?

The helmet and eye protection if for other people's safety also.
How so, if you are riding along the 401 at 100km/h with no lid or eye protection and a rock/bug/object strikes you in the head...your bike is now out of control and you are likely to collide and cause injury or death to someone else. A 400lb bike flying through the air on the 401 is going to do some damage.

As bikers, we have MUCH BIGGER things to worry about...let's start with the use of ALL HOV/DIAMOND lanes.
It's funny on one hand the govt cares so much about your safety e.g. helmets, no turbans....but while on the road they block you out of some of the safer lanes.:confused:
Then let's move to graduated licensing...willing to move that down the list BUT we all know insurance is a problem....new report says Ontario is the WORSE in Canada.
 
油井緋色;2494172 said:
This is why I'm a programmer and avoid working with people. No one is really right or wrong in this thread and it's confusing as ****.

I'm just gonna eat popcorn.
Click to expand...

That's why you try to find the middle and you tend to er on the side of public safety over individuals rights e.g. free speech but yelling fire in a dark movie theater is a no no or sitting on the plane saying you have a gun or like to make bombs is another no no.

The law likes to use the word REASONABLE (care).

Why do we have speed limits on the highways?
 
-D- said:
That's why you try to find the middle and you tend to er on the side of public safety over individuals rights e.g. free speech but yelling fire in a dark movie theater is a no no or sitting on the plane saying you have a gun or like to make bombs is another no no.

The law likes to use the word REASONABLE (care).

Why do we have speed limits on the highways?
Click to expand...

Because the vast majority of drivers absolutely suck donkey balls and would off themselves if they go too fast due to lacking common sense? Also ticket revenue generation.

I see your point lol
 
Well I do not see why any religious person should have to use or wear any safety equipment, including helmets--they have an invisibly sky fairy to protect them! Making them use safety equipment is just redundant and inefficient.

In all seriousness (not that I am not serious above...), it is a slippery slope. We can say make them pay extra insurance (so not a penny is spent by OHIP) because what they are doing is dangerous, well riding a motorcycle is dangerous so with that logic we should all pay the extra insurance (we do pay insurance but not pay enough to completely release OHIP in costs)...

From another perspective, is there a religious rule that something cannot be worn over the Turban? Seems to me there is a business opportunity here to make hard hats and MC helmets that are designed to fit over the Turban, is there not?
 
PrivatePilot said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

"becoming an issue on construction sites"

the article you referenced is a few years old. The courts have ruled on this "issue" many times. Wear the hard hat or get off the site.... simple. The helmet exception in BC was passed a long time ago... it probably wouldnt have passed if it went to court more recently.. just like it was shot down in Ontario and other places since.
 
Livewir3 said:
Abortion is murder!!!

That is all.
Click to expand...

Everyone's entitled their beliefs.

inreb said:
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?
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. :)
 
this is the "insert you favorite issue into the conversation" thread lol, helmet laws to abortion (I support both for the record)
 
backmarkerducati said:
Well I do not see why any religious person should have to use or wear any safety equipment, including helmets--they have an invisibly sky fairy to protect them! Making them use safety equipment is just redundant and inefficient.

In all seriousness (not that I am not serious above...), it is a slippery slope. We can say make them pay extra insurance (so not a penny is spent by OHIP) because what they are doing is dangerous, well riding a motorcycle is dangerous so with that logic we should all pay the extra insurance (we do pay insurance but not pay enough to completely release OHIP in costs)...

From another perspective, is there a religious rule that something cannot be worn over the Turban? Seems to me there is a business opportunity here to make hard hats and MC helmets that are designed to fit over the Turban, is there not?
Click to expand...

Turbans tend to color coordinate plus I don't think you/they would want to obstruct their religious symbol.
The turban thing will eventually pass. I would think all they have to do is accuse the govt of religious bias/prejudice against their group...one group can wear full face and body covering...full face covering for photo of gun and citizenship card...therefore why are our beliefs not as valued.
Govt capitulates to safe face and money and ta da...
 
Hm...I'm going to actually contribute something that will piss people off and I apologize before hand.

I think all laws should be agnostic. Mind you, I am Catholic and became agnostic over the years because I came to realize every religion was built on similar foundations but somehow have led to millions being brutally murdered. This was mostly done for political reasons but religion was used to allow the decisions to hold more weight. It is also impossible to prove or disprove whether an entity that defies the known laws of nature exists or not.

With that said, I think the decision for turbans as helmets should not be implemented unless it applies to EVERYONE. We should not have to make laws specific for a group of people because of their personal spiritual belief. If we do, then I should be allowed to wear an octopus on my head while riding to represent Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster God (this is an actual religion, not a joke, Google it).

Also, destroy the Catholic School system and implement religion as an optional course in all schools with specific religion courses.
 
Last edited:
油井緋色;2494213 said:
....Also, destroy the Catholic School system and implement religion as an optional course in all schools with specific religion courses.
Click to expand...

Catholic taxes are higher then non. Not gonna happen. Same for French tax designation.
 
油井緋色;2494213 said:
Hm...I'm going to actually contribute something that will piss people off and I apologize before hand.

I think all laws should be agnostic. Mind you, I am Catholic and became agnostic over the years because I came to realize every religion was built on similar foundations but somehow have led to millions being brutally murdered. This was mostly done for political reasons but religion was used to allow the decisions to hold more weight. It is also impossible to prove or disprove whether an entity that defies the known laws of nature exists or not.

With that said, I think the decision for turbans as helmets should not be implemented unless it applies to EVERYONE. We should not have to make laws specific for a group of people because of their personal spiritual belief. If we do, then I should be allowed to wear an octopus on my head while riding to represent Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster God (this is an actual religion, not a joke, Google it).

Also, destroy the Catholic School system and implement religion as an optional course in all schools with specific religion courses.
Click to expand...

Part of what you are saying IS what we already have and supposed to be. Separation of Church and State...hence why they removed crosses and the Lord's prayer from public schools.

Our system goes the other way it seems for you to lobby the govt as to why neutral treatment for all is infringing on one groups wants/needs/rights.
The louder or the more votes gets the changes they seek.

As you said, why can't you wear a turban on your bike. If cop stops you what are they going to ask you...you are Asian so you can't be a Sikh? Or how long have you been a Sikh? If someone is an Atheist then they should also be allowed to wear a baseball hat to respect their views of being nonreligious.
Slippery slope...each religious group will want their own school systems.

We will end up with a series of countries/nations within A nation.
German politicians are on the public record/video for stating in 20 years German will be the minority language in Germany.
 
Roadghost said:
There is no excuse for forced helmet use other than pure, outright paternalism. You could eliminate almost every right to take a risk based on the social healthcare burden argument. It's not a legitimate excuse. Like in the State of Michigan, we could simply make people who choose to ride without a helmet pay more for insurance. It is that simple. Same for every other risky exercises like smoking, skydiving, bungee jumping, white water rafting and... motorcycling.

Moreover, it should not be assumed that anyone is automatically giving up all their constitutional freedoms simply by exercising the so-called "privilege" of using the public highway. Your rights are your rights, and if you don't have the right to take a personal risk, you don't have a free society.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think I should be able to drive my car without a windshield.
 
^ I think you do have to have at least the windshield up to operate a Jeep on roads. Or at least that is what I was told when I asked. Doors/top not an issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom