8 ms·

Tough Turban: an open-source design for turban-wearing motorcyclists

92 points by motohagiography 5y ago

Animats 5y ago
Can it pass the usual Snell helmet tests? [1] [1] https://smf.org/testing https://smf.org/testing
- kemitchell 5y ago
  Does Snell approve any open-face helmets?
  - hprotagonist 5y ago
    yes. https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/arai-classic-v-helmet https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/arai-classic-v-helmet
marcinzm 5y ago
What I'm not seeing is any safety testing at all that was done on this design. Which seems a big oversight.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  For a safety product, that's not oversight, that's nigh criminal negligence.
stickfigure 5y ago
No chin strap? First major accident, your head goes one way and the helmet goes another. If you're morbid, a little searching will produce plenty of examples caught on video.
- Taniwha 5y ago
  Pretty sure Sikhs have been keeping turbans on their heads for hundreds of years - a turban is different from a hat
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    Your comment in no way addresses OP's point. Centuries of tradition are nothing against a new milliseconds of Newtonian mechanics, sorry. Why couldn't a turban have a chin strap?
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Sikh turbans are wrapped into their long, uncut hair. It's not going anywhere.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        When it hits the ground going 50mph its not staying on. Period.
        monocasa 5y ago
        Do you have any data behind that?
        dkarras 5y ago
        yes, common sense. people are known to get decapitated on impact. limbs flying everywhere because of the accelerations involved. traditional helmets get ground on asphalt enough to develop actual holes. what makes you think something worn on head has this magical qualities defying the laws of physics?
        monocasa 5y ago
        "common sense" isn't data. And we're obviously not talking about the forces that would remove a properly fitted helmet (and perhaps head) as well.
mynegation 5y ago
No chin strap, no protection for the chin, temples, unclear protection of the back of the head. This is useless, unless this serves just as an inspiration for a better design.
- bradlys 5y ago
  This seems worse than the typical skull cap helmet because of the no-chin strap. I'd imagine it'd fly off as soon as you hit a substantial bump or were going fast enough for it to catch wind. Thing cannot be aerodynamic with all that ribbing, can it? It'd surely start rocking your head or something, right?
  - abrokenpipe 5y ago
    I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but IIRC the Sikh don't cut their hair as part of their religion and the turbans are a strip of cloth that gets folded around their hair and then it is wrapped around their head and tied tight. It doesn't seem like something that would fly off from the wind, although depending on how you crashed it could slide off your head easier than a standard helmet. I think the real question is how much would a couple millimeters of non-newtonian fluid do to reduce a motorcycle impact.
avalys 5y ago
It seems odd to believe that your god prohibits you from wearing a normal helmet, while not also believing that your god will protect you from the injury that results from not wearing one. And if that's not the motivating belief here, why not just wear a normal helmet (or, why ride motorcycles at all?)
- dang 5y ago
  Please let's not go into religious flamewar.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prawn 5y ago
"Inspired by the recent helmet law exemption for Sikh motorcyclists..." So I guess it's trying to be better than nothing rather than a full solution to head protection. Unless you want a chinstrap on a turban. Bit like stronger thongs/flipflops maybe.
ruytlm 5y ago
http://web.archive.org/web/20210621173229/https://www.toughturban.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20210621173229/https://www.tought... Probably better than no helmet, though my concern would be that this provides no real protection from abrasion for the face. Motorcycle protective gear needs to protect from impacts yes, but abrasion is also a significant risk - slides from speeds over 100kph can be quite substantial in both time and distance - upwards of 5 seconds, and dozens of metres, pushing higher in different conditions. This video of a slide in the wet made the rounds a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0
- nicbou 5y ago
  Open faced helmets in general are a terrible idea. Close to half of motorcycle accidents will hit the part of the helmet that covers the sides of your chin. A scooter helmet or a brain bucket might keep you alive, but it won't protect the parts of your face you chew food and smell things with. That extends to the rest of your body. Protective gear is the difference between a bruise and a scar. Remember falling off your bike as a kid? At over 50 km/h with a 200 kg bike, you'll turn into a meat crayon. As they say, dress for the slide, not the ride. Mine saved my life, and prevented a few scars.
UI_at_80x24 5y ago
While all the posts before mine were decrying the usefulness of this design I want to make a different point. This shows what can be done when you really do think outside the box and stop letting convention dictate what can be accomplished. This concept makes my heart swell at how awesome inclusion can be. This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion. I ride. I curse at the organ donors who wear skull-caps, or the teens wearing shorts & t-shirts; and hope I am wrong and they stay lucky. But I support this. Things can only get better from here. This is an improvement. This is embracing what's different and trying to make a difference.
- taneq 5y ago
  > It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion. Exactly. This is no different to kevlar jeans - they're nowhere near as good as racing leathers, but they're a damn sight better than regular pants while still being something you can wear all day.
- ruytlm 5y ago
  I am happy to support this as well, though I would hope that the criticism would be taken as constructive and used to improve the design so that it can be both inclusive and safer than this initial concept.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  > This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion. My understanding was that the religious obligation for Sikhs was to keep their hair covered. Does this necessarily require a cloth turban? This seems like a case where Sikhs could take a page out of Orthodox Jews' book and do some creative interpretation of what defines a turban, rather than try to turn a turban into an inferior helmet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
galago 5y ago
It seems like what is needed is a full-face, Snell tested helmet that accommodates a turban. It might have to be a bit bigger, but there's probably some market for this.
kemitchell 5y ago
For context: Sikh bikers in Canada have protested laws mandating helmets be worn while riding. This site has the name of Pfaff Harley-Davidson, a dealership in Ontario, Canada, in its footer. As a safety conscious rider, it's hard to see this one way. On one hand, the Sikh riders seem to really enjoy riding, and riding together. Nothing quite says "bad ass immigrant" like a flock of brown brothers on Harleys in matching turbans, rolling in a holiday parade. Turban and beard are very integral to their religious identity, no doubt about that. On the other hand, riding without a helmet is a terrible idea, for both the rider and the community, which inevitably bears part of the consequences. Even purpose-built helmets without chin bars and face shields do little to change outcomes in the majority of crashes. Even at sub-freeway speeds. There are good reasons modern ECE and Snell ratings really require full-face helmets for street motorcycling applications. I really, really hope this isn't a Sikh-specific rehash of the "party hat" phenomenon in the USA. Down here, some riders, and especially "scene" Harley-Davidson riders, reacted to helmet laws by selling cheap, minimal "helmets" that either claim to pass or just pass our laughably outdated DOT safety standards. These are little better than paper party hats, ticking a box to avoid obvious problems with police. I'm not familiar with the full context in Canada. But law aside, anybody riding a motorcycle on public roads in a turban needs extra helpings of initial and refresher training, more insurance, and proactive estate planning.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > For context: Sikh bikers in Canada have protested laws mandating helmets be worn while riding. Why is there a need for a law? Someone should be free to ride without a helmet, whatever his religion, as long as he can find an insurer willing to provide adequate coverage (or be able to self-insure) for his medical bills.
  - cmyr 5y ago
    In Canada that would be the state, which might explain the state using available tools to discourage this behaviour?
    - yodelshady 5y ago
hprotagonist 5y ago
I'll take my RF1400, thanks.
mike_d 5y ago
I am not a religious person, but I admire the Sikhs. They embrace equality and should be an example to other religions on how to truly help their community. They make exemptions to their religion when it benefits society, like not wearing kirpans on airplanes. As much as I would hate to see a Sikh (or anyone for that matter) badly injured in a motorcycle crash, not wearing an approved helmet has no external victims - so I respect this as a good compromise. Please supplement this with a good backboard and an airbag vest that provides neck support.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- use-n-gate 5y ago
  Oh wow, I'm sure sikhs are definitely looking for validation from a random internet stranger who's probably never met a sikh. That said, sikhs saved 1 more billion people from being forced to convert to peaceful religion, so definitely decent people
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  In a country where the public picks up any part of one's medical bills, every taxpayer suffers the consequences of anyone's negligence. I'm not saying that that fact has clear behavioral implications -- a world where nobody wad allowed to risk their health in any way would be both unjust and impossible -- but it's true.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    Why should the public pay for that? Sounds like they are taking additional risks for no good reasons, why not let the market price the insurance premium?
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Everyone takes risks for no good reasons. Drink a coke? Alcohol? Smoke? Cross the road? Drive a car? Have a baby? Work? Don't work? Sleep too much? Don't sleep enough? Etc. It's impossible not to. We need to experience life, not just avoid all risks!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
balfirevic 5y ago
> Open source for personal use It is not open source.
- thunderbong 5y ago
  There seems to be a 'Download designs' link on top of the page. Isn't that it? Do we really need a Github link? Maybe it's not open contribution?
  - balfirevic 5y ago
    > Isn't that it? No, because of the "for personal use" restriction. Whether it is on Github has nothing to do with it.
    - frosted-flakes 5y ago
      Open source simply means the source is publicly available. There can be, and often are, restrictions on how the source can be used.
      - opan 5y ago
        I think you've got visible source in mind.
        atatatat 5y ago
        "Source available" is the preferred term of a particular commercial GrapheneOS.org "competitor".
      - balfirevic 5y ago
        It doesn't simply mean that. It means some fairly specific things [0], one of which is that there can be no "discrimination against fields of endeavor", which restriction on commercial use is. [0] - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
  - 5y ago
gwelson 5y ago
Out of curiosity, is there no way to wear a helmet over a turban? I've had Sikh friends who wear warm winter hats over their head coverings, for instance. No disrespect to Sikhs reading this, I'm genuinely curious.
- abrokenpipe 5y ago
  I'm guessing it has more to do with comfort and appearances (they do look badass). I never really understood laws that force adults to wear helmets, if someone want's to take the risk then thats their decision.
  - stkdump 5y ago
    Do you want emergency services rendered to people who get into an accident?
    - abrokenpipe 5y ago
      I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but I think that anyone who gets into an accident deserves attention from emergency services. To suggest otherwise would be rather vengeful.
      - Omni5cience 5y ago
        I’m not the parent commenter, but I believe they’re making the case that there are negative externalities that come from not wearing protective equipment which are borne by others in some form or another. In Canada, for example, there is a very direct cost to others because of their universal healthcare.
        abrokenpipe 5y ago
        Thanks, I had a feeling that is what they were talking about but wasn't positive. That seems like a selfish stance to have, and also ironic considering the ideologies behind universal healthcare. How much money even gets spent on medical bills for bikers who choose not to wear helmets? If everyones personal lifestyle choices now have a monetary impact on each other, then how much intervention does this justify? Should people be forced to eat healthy and exercise? Obesity cost the healthcare system significantly more than motorcycle injuries. Alcohol, candy, cigarettes, even OTC drugs have a huge cost on the healthcare system, should those be illegal? What about mental health? Should people be prevented from doing anything considered "health threatening" out of the fear they may cost tax payers money? Also should people be allowed to opt-out of a universal healthcare system and be exempt from lifestyle regulations?
wizardofmysore 5y ago
It's the 21st century, please don't use rules set in a different context. They should just wear a helmet.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  “Irrational beliefs”? You think it’s the 21st century, and what is that based on exactly?
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    You just exploded my brain.
  - wizardofmysore 5y ago
    You are so right. The earth is flat. Shaving is bad. God cares about who you have sex with. I like the work that Sikh community does. I've come across many good Sikh people. But their beliefs regarding hair is harmful in this case.
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      You’ve come across many good Shik’s? I wonder if you told them to their face your viewpoints on their irrational beliefs, somehow I doubt it and that’s why you edited your comment from “irrational beliefs” to “out of context”.
      - wizardofmysore 5y ago
        I felt irrational was too strong a word, there might have been good reasons for the turban in a different time, I don't see a good one for while riding a bike.
    - ortuna 5y ago
      One of the reasons to not cut your hair and wear a turban is that a Sikh can't hide out in a crowd. You always know who is Sikh. This coupled with the mandate that a Sikh must always help those in need means that you always know where to look and ask for help. From my perspective (US), this is a much needed belief today since it was born out of the similar circumstances in 1699.
justshowpost 5y ago
Looks like their beliefs naturally forbids them to endanger themselves and the other on the road. So far so good.
imwillofficial 5y ago
This product is absolutely sending the wrong message. I've been riding motorcycles for a decade. My father was a motorcycle defensive driving instructor and somebody ran a red light and nailed him. My oldest brother was a semi-pro motorcycle racer and still died in a crash. The only sane option when riding a motorcycle is a full face helmet and proper protective gear. Insisting on wearing religious garb while riding means you should not be riding.
nicbou 5y ago
This is a dumb helmet, and if you survive a crash with it, you still won't look pretty. However, it isn't much worse than the brain buckets Harley riders wear. Ironically, the loudest of the "loud pipes save lives" crowd tends to love riding without any protective equipment. That being said, it's their problem. I wear full gear, they don't. They choose the risk they are willing to accept. Sure, tax dollars pay for their accidents, but in a world of smokers, heavy drinkers, cyclists running red lights and programmers never exercising, what's another person living dangerously?
motohagiography 5y ago
The snark on this from ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) crowd is a bit much. I could imagine it would be frustrating for the concerned to be taking most of the risk that someone looking badass takes, but getting none of the reflected glory. Riders ride for the pleasure of it, judging others for how they enjoy it is a bit much. This idea we get to be judgy and have anxieties about others taking risks, as though we have some responsibility for them is just wishful thinking. It makes the critic feel they are retaining some power in the face of a risk taker's badassery. Every time I read resentment of someone else taking risks, it's by someone who aspires to do the same thing and doesn't because their risk appetite isn't the same. Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. The reason people hate on Harley riders is because they feel ashamed. We all die, but please, try to lay off those of us who choose to live a little before we do.
- woah 5y ago
  People hate on Harley riders because they are more into making a lot of noise than getting from A to B. The only risk most of them take is the risk of looking like a middle aged dentist compensating for something
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. Riding a purposefully noisy vehicle is not what risk taking looks like, it's more like a "Look at me! I exist!" cry for validation, and that's not powerful or sexy.
- esyir 5y ago
  Going into slightly darker places though, from A purely utilitarian point of view, I wonder how the math works out on cost benefit ratio here. Motorcyclists, especially non-helmet wearing ones, are a major source of viable organ donations. The increased organ supply, is an odd and morbid, if beneficial, externality of helmet law repeals[0]. The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags). [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256
AbraKdabra 5y ago
I respect religions even being agnostic, but this is completely stupid and irresponsible not for each one, but for others (it's called civil responsibility), wear a fucking helmet, don't be a corpse-wannabe.

Animats 5y ago

Can it pass the usual Snell helmet tests? [1] [1] https://smf.org/testing https://smf.org/testing

kemitchell 5y ago
Does Snell approve any open-face helmets?
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  yes. https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/arai-classic-v-helmet https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/arai-classic-v-helmet

marcinzm 5y ago

What I'm not seeing is any safety testing at all that was done on this design. Which seems a big oversight.

imwillofficial 5y ago
For a safety product, that's not oversight, that's nigh criminal negligence.

stickfigure 5y ago

No chin strap? First major accident, your head goes one way and the helmet goes another. If you're morbid, a little searching will produce plenty of examples caught on video.

Taniwha 5y ago
Pretty sure Sikhs have been keeping turbans on their heads for hundreds of years - a turban is different from a hat
- quotemstr 5y ago
  Your comment in no way addresses OP's point. Centuries of tradition are nothing against a new milliseconds of Newtonian mechanics, sorry. Why couldn't a turban have a chin strap?
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Sikh turbans are wrapped into their long, uncut hair. It's not going anywhere.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      When it hits the ground going 50mph its not staying on. Period.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Do you have any data behind that?
        dkarras 5y ago
        yes, common sense. people are known to get decapitated on impact. limbs flying everywhere because of the accelerations involved. traditional helmets get ground on asphalt enough to develop actual holes. what makes you think something worn on head has this magical qualities defying the laws of physics?
        monocasa 5y ago
        "common sense" isn't data. And we're obviously not talking about the forces that would remove a properly fitted helmet (and perhaps head) as well.

mynegation 5y ago

No chin strap, no protection for the chin, temples, unclear protection of the back of the head. This is useless, unless this serves just as an inspiration for a better design.

bradlys 5y ago
This seems worse than the typical skull cap helmet because of the no-chin strap. I'd imagine it'd fly off as soon as you hit a substantial bump or were going fast enough for it to catch wind. Thing cannot be aerodynamic with all that ribbing, can it? It'd surely start rocking your head or something, right?
- abrokenpipe 5y ago
  I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but IIRC the Sikh don't cut their hair as part of their religion and the turbans are a strip of cloth that gets folded around their hair and then it is wrapped around their head and tied tight. It doesn't seem like something that would fly off from the wind, although depending on how you crashed it could slide off your head easier than a standard helmet. I think the real question is how much would a couple millimeters of non-newtonian fluid do to reduce a motorcycle impact.

avalys 5y ago

It seems odd to believe that your god prohibits you from wearing a normal helmet, while not also believing that your god will protect you from the injury that results from not wearing one. And if that's not the motivating belief here, why not just wear a normal helmet (or, why ride motorcycles at all?)

dang 5y ago
Please let's not go into religious flamewar.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

prawn 5y ago

"Inspired by the recent helmet law exemption for Sikh motorcyclists..." So I guess it's trying to be better than nothing rather than a full solution to head protection. Unless you want a chinstrap on a turban. Bit like stronger thongs/flipflops maybe.

ruytlm 5y ago

http://web.archive.org/web/20210621173229/https://www.toughturban.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20210621173229/https://www.tought... Probably better than no helmet, though my concern would be that this provides no real protection from abrasion for the face. Motorcycle protective gear needs to protect from impacts yes, but abrasion is also a significant risk - slides from speeds over 100kph can be quite substantial in both time and distance - upwards of 5 seconds, and dozens of metres, pushing higher in different conditions. This video of a slide in the wet made the rounds a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0

nicbou 5y ago
Open faced helmets in general are a terrible idea. Close to half of motorcycle accidents will hit the part of the helmet that covers the sides of your chin. A scooter helmet or a brain bucket might keep you alive, but it won't protect the parts of your face you chew food and smell things with. That extends to the rest of your body. Protective gear is the difference between a bruise and a scar. Remember falling off your bike as a kid? At over 50 km/h with a 200 kg bike, you'll turn into a meat crayon. As they say, dress for the slide, not the ride. Mine saved my life, and prevented a few scars.

UI_at_80x24 5y ago

While all the posts before mine were decrying the usefulness of this design I want to make a different point. This shows what can be done when you really do think outside the box and stop letting convention dictate what can be accomplished. This concept makes my heart swell at how awesome inclusion can be. This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion. I ride. I curse at the organ donors who wear skull-caps, or the teens wearing shorts & t-shirts; and hope I am wrong and they stay lucky. But I support this. Things can only get better from here. This is an improvement. This is embracing what's different and trying to make a difference.

taneq 5y ago
> It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion. Exactly. This is no different to kevlar jeans - they're nowhere near as good as racing leathers, but they're a damn sight better than regular pants while still being something you can wear all day.
ruytlm 5y ago
I am happy to support this as well, though I would hope that the criticism would be taken as constructive and used to improve the design so that it can be both inclusive and safer than this initial concept.
pseudo0 5y ago
> This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion. My understanding was that the religious obligation for Sikhs was to keep their hair covered. Does this necessarily require a cloth turban? This seems like a case where Sikhs could take a page out of Orthodox Jews' book and do some creative interpretation of what defines a turban, rather than try to turn a turban into an inferior helmet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

galago 5y ago

It seems like what is needed is a full-face, Snell tested helmet that accommodates a turban. It might have to be a bit bigger, but there's probably some market for this.

kemitchell 5y ago

For context: Sikh bikers in Canada have protested laws mandating helmets be worn while riding. This site has the name of Pfaff Harley-Davidson, a dealership in Ontario, Canada, in its footer. As a safety conscious rider, it's hard to see this one way. On one hand, the Sikh riders seem to really enjoy riding, and riding together. Nothing quite says "bad ass immigrant" like a flock of brown brothers on Harleys in matching turbans, rolling in a holiday parade. Turban and beard are very integral to their religious identity, no doubt about that. On the other hand, riding without a helmet is a terrible idea, for both the rider and the community, which inevitably bears part of the consequences. Even purpose-built helmets without chin bars and face shields do little to change outcomes in the majority of crashes. Even at sub-freeway speeds. There are good reasons modern ECE and Snell ratings really require full-face helmets for street motorcycling applications. I really, really hope this isn't a Sikh-specific rehash of the "party hat" phenomenon in the USA. Down here, some riders, and especially "scene" Harley-Davidson riders, reacted to helmet laws by selling cheap, minimal "helmets" that either claim to pass or just pass our laughably outdated DOT safety standards. These are little better than paper party hats, ticking a box to avoid obvious problems with police. I'm not familiar with the full context in Canada. But law aside, anybody riding a motorcycle on public roads in a turban needs extra helpings of initial and refresher training, more insurance, and proactive estate planning.

908B64B197 5y ago
> For context: Sikh bikers in Canada have protested laws mandating helmets be worn while riding. Why is there a need for a law? Someone should be free to ride without a helmet, whatever his religion, as long as he can find an insurer willing to provide adequate coverage (or be able to self-insure) for his medical bills.
- cmyr 5y ago
  In Canada that would be the state, which might explain the state using available tools to discourage this behaviour?
  - yodelshady 5y ago

hprotagonist 5y ago

I'll take my RF1400, thanks.

mike_d 5y ago

I am not a religious person, but I admire the Sikhs. They embrace equality and should be an example to other religions on how to truly help their community. They make exemptions to their religion when it benefits society, like not wearing kirpans on airplanes. As much as I would hate to see a Sikh (or anyone for that matter) badly injured in a motorcycle crash, not wearing an approved helmet has no external victims - so I respect this as a good compromise. Please supplement this with a good backboard and an airbag vest that provides neck support.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
use-n-gate 5y ago
Oh wow, I'm sure sikhs are definitely looking for validation from a random internet stranger who's probably never met a sikh. That said, sikhs saved 1 more billion people from being forced to convert to peaceful religion, so definitely decent people
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
In a country where the public picks up any part of one's medical bills, every taxpayer suffers the consequences of anyone's negligence. I'm not saying that that fact has clear behavioral implications -- a world where nobody wad allowed to risk their health in any way would be both unjust and impossible -- but it's true.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  Why should the public pay for that? Sounds like they are taking additional risks for no good reasons, why not let the market price the insurance premium?
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Everyone takes risks for no good reasons. Drink a coke? Alcohol? Smoke? Cross the road? Drive a car? Have a baby? Work? Don't work? Sleep too much? Don't sleep enough? Etc. It's impossible not to. We need to experience life, not just avoid all risks!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

balfirevic 5y ago

> Open source for personal use It is not open source.

thunderbong 5y ago
There seems to be a 'Download designs' link on top of the page. Isn't that it? Do we really need a Github link? Maybe it's not open contribution?
- balfirevic 5y ago
  > Isn't that it? No, because of the "for personal use" restriction. Whether it is on Github has nothing to do with it.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    Open source simply means the source is publicly available. There can be, and often are, restrictions on how the source can be used.
    - opan 5y ago
      I think you've got visible source in mind.
      - atatatat 5y ago
        "Source available" is the preferred term of a particular commercial GrapheneOS.org "competitor".
    - balfirevic 5y ago
      It doesn't simply mean that. It means some fairly specific things [0], one of which is that there can be no "discrimination against fields of endeavor", which restriction on commercial use is. [0] - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- 5y ago

gwelson 5y ago

Out of curiosity, is there no way to wear a helmet over a turban? I've had Sikh friends who wear warm winter hats over their head coverings, for instance. No disrespect to Sikhs reading this, I'm genuinely curious.

abrokenpipe 5y ago
I'm guessing it has more to do with comfort and appearances (they do look badass). I never really understood laws that force adults to wear helmets, if someone want's to take the risk then thats their decision.
- stkdump 5y ago
  Do you want emergency services rendered to people who get into an accident?
  - abrokenpipe 5y ago
    I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but I think that anyone who gets into an accident deserves attention from emergency services. To suggest otherwise would be rather vengeful.
    - Omni5cience 5y ago
      I’m not the parent commenter, but I believe they’re making the case that there are negative externalities that come from not wearing protective equipment which are borne by others in some form or another. In Canada, for example, there is a very direct cost to others because of their universal healthcare.
      - abrokenpipe 5y ago
        Thanks, I had a feeling that is what they were talking about but wasn't positive. That seems like a selfish stance to have, and also ironic considering the ideologies behind universal healthcare. How much money even gets spent on medical bills for bikers who choose not to wear helmets? If everyones personal lifestyle choices now have a monetary impact on each other, then how much intervention does this justify? Should people be forced to eat healthy and exercise? Obesity cost the healthcare system significantly more than motorcycle injuries. Alcohol, candy, cigarettes, even OTC drugs have a huge cost on the healthcare system, should those be illegal? What about mental health? Should people be prevented from doing anything considered "health threatening" out of the fear they may cost tax payers money? Also should people be allowed to opt-out of a universal healthcare system and be exempt from lifestyle regulations?

wizardofmysore 5y ago

It's the 21st century, please don't use rules set in a different context. They should just wear a helmet.

throwawaycities 5y ago
“Irrational beliefs”? You think it’s the 21st century, and what is that based on exactly?
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  You just exploded my brain.
- wizardofmysore 5y ago
  You are so right. The earth is flat. Shaving is bad. God cares about who you have sex with. I like the work that Sikh community does. I've come across many good Sikh people. But their beliefs regarding hair is harmful in this case.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    You’ve come across many good Shik’s? I wonder if you told them to their face your viewpoints on their irrational beliefs, somehow I doubt it and that’s why you edited your comment from “irrational beliefs” to “out of context”.
    - wizardofmysore 5y ago
      I felt irrational was too strong a word, there might have been good reasons for the turban in a different time, I don't see a good one for while riding a bike.
  - ortuna 5y ago
    One of the reasons to not cut your hair and wear a turban is that a Sikh can't hide out in a crowd. You always know who is Sikh. This coupled with the mandate that a Sikh must always help those in need means that you always know where to look and ask for help. From my perspective (US), this is a much needed belief today since it was born out of the similar circumstances in 1699.

justshowpost 5y ago

Looks like their beliefs naturally forbids them to endanger themselves and the other on the road. So far so good.

imwillofficial 5y ago

This product is absolutely sending the wrong message. I've been riding motorcycles for a decade. My father was a motorcycle defensive driving instructor and somebody ran a red light and nailed him. My oldest brother was a semi-pro motorcycle racer and still died in a crash. The only sane option when riding a motorcycle is a full face helmet and proper protective gear. Insisting on wearing religious garb while riding means you should not be riding.

nicbou 5y ago

This is a dumb helmet, and if you survive a crash with it, you still won't look pretty. However, it isn't much worse than the brain buckets Harley riders wear. Ironically, the loudest of the "loud pipes save lives" crowd tends to love riding without any protective equipment. That being said, it's their problem. I wear full gear, they don't. They choose the risk they are willing to accept. Sure, tax dollars pay for their accidents, but in a world of smokers, heavy drinkers, cyclists running red lights and programmers never exercising, what's another person living dangerously?

motohagiography 5y ago

The snark on this from ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) crowd is a bit much. I could imagine it would be frustrating for the concerned to be taking most of the risk that someone looking badass takes, but getting none of the reflected glory. Riders ride for the pleasure of it, judging others for how they enjoy it is a bit much. This idea we get to be judgy and have anxieties about others taking risks, as though we have some responsibility for them is just wishful thinking. It makes the critic feel they are retaining some power in the face of a risk taker's badassery. Every time I read resentment of someone else taking risks, it's by someone who aspires to do the same thing and doesn't because their risk appetite isn't the same. Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. The reason people hate on Harley riders is because they feel ashamed. We all die, but please, try to lay off those of us who choose to live a little before we do.

woah 5y ago
People hate on Harley riders because they are more into making a lot of noise than getting from A to B. The only risk most of them take is the risk of looking like a middle aged dentist compensating for something
ASalazarMX 5y ago
> Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. Riding a purposefully noisy vehicle is not what risk taking looks like, it's more like a "Look at me! I exist!" cry for validation, and that's not powerful or sexy.
esyir 5y ago
Going into slightly darker places though, from A purely utilitarian point of view, I wonder how the math works out on cost benefit ratio here. Motorcyclists, especially non-helmet wearing ones, are a major source of viable organ donations. The increased organ supply, is an odd and morbid, if beneficial, externality of helmet law repeals[0]. The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags). [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256

AbraKdabra 5y ago

I respect religions even being agnostic, but this is completely stupid and irresponsible not for each one, but for others (it's called civil responsibility), wear a fucking helmet, don't be a corpse-wannabe.