I also do not care. I would continue wearing a helmet 99.9% of the time if the law changed that we didn’t have to.
They Sikh community got together wanting a change and got it. All the power to them. It’s their noggin not mine so again it doesn’t have any bearing on me.
I also do not care. I would continue wearing a helmet 99.9% of the time if the law changed that we didn’t have to.
They Sikh community got together wanting a change and got it. All the power to them. It’s their noggin not mine so again it doesn’t have any bearing on me.
I agree, changing safety laws based on religion is stupid. If you don't want to comply with the laws, just don't ride. It's a privilege anyway not a right.
I still haven't seen any studies on the costs associated with no helmets. My gut feeling is this will be much cheaper for insurance and OHIP as a death is cheap, perpetual care is expensive as it gets. You need to be careful with arguing about the cost of things. None of us need to ride. It is not a right and us riding costs OHIP much more than if we were in cages.
Wearing a helmet does not infringe on Sikhs' freedom of worship, a top German court has ruled. It argued that the measure protects the motorcyclist as well as other drivers and must therefore be enforced.
www.dw.com
Interesting perspective.
[Judge Renate Philipp said] the claimant has to accept this restriction to his freedom of religion, as it serves to uphold the rights of others, too.
...
The Leipzig court argued that the obligation to wear a helmet not only protects the driver but also keeps other drivers from being traumatized if they cause heavy injury to someone driving without a helmet.
all riders claiming this BS should have to sign a waiver for their ins company and any provincial health care...riding a bike is a privilege not a right...don't like it don't ride
You aren’t wrong. To me it is such a small issue and I really don’t see the rights of other Canadians affected by it so it simply is an issue that doesn’t matter to me.
It could be viewed as a slippery slope when you make changes based on religion. I’m okay with catering to specific groups when it’s a small issue with minimal impact on others. Just my opinion and I respect that others might not agree though.
This is a dead old argument. Helmetless riders save insurers and public health care system money. It's so well proven that helmet advocates avoid the discussion.
Unless someone lives a totally healthy lifestyle, eats properly, doesn't smoke, drink, etc, etc... and does everything possible to eliminate any and all risk from their lives.. They can't use the OHIP argument.
I don't think there's a single person in Ontario that can use that argument
Bloated, fat, Mcdonald's regulars have a way bigger impact on OHIP costs than helmetless rider will ever have.. even if they all crashed.
My feeling is that you have a helmet law or you don't. Riding and driving is a privilege in Canada, not a civil right, if you can't play by the rules find something else to do.
My personal belief is that as long as there is no extra stress on public health of insurers, motorcyclists should not be subject to nanny laws (meaning individuals ought to have the right to decide on whether they wear helmets.)
Cyclists, skiers, figure skaters all put a massive load on public health and insurers -- for those groups helmet laws seem as logical as the do for hockey players -- why are motor sports riders singled out anyway?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.