4 ms·

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

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riders, reacted to helmet laws by selling cheap, minimal "helmets" that either claim to pass or just pass our laughably outdated DOT safety standards.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
    Why does the first mandate the second? A private insurer doesn't compel me to do <X>, it just invalidates cover if I don't. I'm not fined for being fat, or even given the bill for my own (hypothetical) coronary, despite the enormous liability that gives the state. As long as that's true, I'd say motorcyclists can reasonably doubt that protecting the state is the real purpose.
- justshowpost 5y ago
  The other people who pays taxes would be providing money for medical bills... That's the problem.
- dkarras 5y ago
  I believe there is a difference in legal responsibility when you are involved in an accident where there is a fatality involved. Also tax money is involved in the care of the injured regardless.
- greazy 5y ago
  These laws exist to protect idiots from themselves and to protect others, like the pillion.
- emptyfile 5y ago
  >Why is there a need for a law? Because we live in a society? Because suiciding yourself on public roads should be illegal?
- Mumps 5y ago
  Not all societies believe that individual freedoms cannot be preempted by things that help the society as a whole or protect the individual from dangers. In Canada, for example, healthcare is a shared burden across all people. Which alone is a strong argument in favour of safety enhancing policies. There is also good argument for the role of government to help take care of its citizens. The danger of not wearing a helmet is so great that the government steps in to enforce people to do it. It doesn't matter how well the person says they are prepared for the risks or has "done research", the data are clear that they are objectively wrong to not wear one. Sure, people can say they are smart and ready, but time and time again we see that people make choices against their best interests. So, the government steps in.
- franga2000 5y ago
  If we believe that healthcare is a basic human right and that the state should therefore provide it to everyone equally and free of charge, then as a matter of practicality (money is finite), we must put some restrictions on the ways people can put themselves in danger. The more people get hurt in preventable accidents, the less money there is to treat everyone else, even if their problems weren't preventable. Doing something reckless is therefore harmful to others by definition. On the other hand, if we believe that people should be allowed to hurt themselves if they can find someone to cover their medical bills, then the question becomes where do we draw the line? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet seems like a reasonable one. What about with a helmet? Motorcycles are inherently dangerous. But all road traffic is more dangerous than trains. Should people need a personal health insurance add-on to drive a car? What about eating unhealthy food? Even if the line is drawn clearly, now only the rich can afford to do certain dangerous things and everyone else can't. Due to money shifting into the private sector, less and less will be covered by state insurance, making things that are allowed even today (like many sports) to be off-limits to anyone middle-class and lower. Now we've turned a situation where everyone has reasonable but equal limits to one where the rich have no limits and everyone else has unreasonably strict limits.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mmmBacon 5y ago
It’s not correct to say that our DOT standards are out of date. In fact there is some debate about the Snell standard vs the DOT standard. The area is around the helmet impact rating. A higher rated impact helmet is generally more rigid and will potentially cause brain injury at lower speeds. Essentially for helmets you trade-off high speed impact survivability vs low speed injury protection. The claim of many riders, myself included is that crashes happen at lower speeds and thus a less rigid helmet is likely more optimal. Having said that there have been significant advances in helmet design in last few years that address low speed impact as well as meet the Snell standard. They do this by reducing the transfer of rotational energy on the user. See for example (6D helmet manufacturer): https://youtu.be/B6jI0w5UFLs https://youtu.be/B6jI0w5UFLs Having said all that a helmet without a chinstrap, such as this one, is basically like not wearing a helmet at all. In a crash, the helmet isn’t going to stay on. If the helmet doesn’t stay on, it’s not going to do anything.
somerandomqaguy 5y ago
>I really, really hope this isn't a Sikh-specific rehash of the "party hat" phenomenon in the USA. Guessing not. At least in Alberta, Sikhs have explicit exemptions from requiring helmets while operating a motorcycle[1]. I think BC and Manitoba do as well but I haven't checked their specific regulations. [1]https://www.alberta.ca/helmet-exemption-sikh.aspx https://www.alberta.ca/helmet-exemption-sikh.aspx
- tweetle_beetle 5y ago
  I'm really surprised that this would still be an issue in any Western countries with a Sikh population of any significance. This is hardly a new topic, as this UK news report from almost half a century ago about the 1973 "Wearing of helmets" regulation shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVe_Gzqgi8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVe_Gzqgi8 It took less than 3 years for an exemption to be put in place, and it came during a period of history that wasn't exactly friendly to immigrants and their descendants.

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
  Why does the first mandate the second? A private insurer doesn't compel me to do <X>, it just invalidates cover if I don't. I'm not fined for being fat, or even given the bill for my own (hypothetical) coronary, despite the enormous liability that gives the state. As long as that's true, I'd say motorcyclists can reasonably doubt that protecting the state is the real purpose.
justshowpost 5y ago
The other people who pays taxes would be providing money for medical bills... That's the problem.
dkarras 5y ago
I believe there is a difference in legal responsibility when you are involved in an accident where there is a fatality involved. Also tax money is involved in the care of the injured regardless.
greazy 5y ago
These laws exist to protect idiots from themselves and to protect others, like the pillion.
emptyfile 5y ago
>Why is there a need for a law? Because we live in a society? Because suiciding yourself on public roads should be illegal?
Mumps 5y ago
Not all societies believe that individual freedoms cannot be preempted by things that help the society as a whole or protect the individual from dangers. In Canada, for example, healthcare is a shared burden across all people. Which alone is a strong argument in favour of safety enhancing policies. There is also good argument for the role of government to help take care of its citizens. The danger of not wearing a helmet is so great that the government steps in to enforce people to do it. It doesn't matter how well the person says they are prepared for the risks or has "done research", the data are clear that they are objectively wrong to not wear one. Sure, people can say they are smart and ready, but time and time again we see that people make choices against their best interests. So, the government steps in.
franga2000 5y ago
If we believe that healthcare is a basic human right and that the state should therefore provide it to everyone equally and free of charge, then as a matter of practicality (money is finite), we must put some restrictions on the ways people can put themselves in danger. The more people get hurt in preventable accidents, the less money there is to treat everyone else, even if their problems weren't preventable. Doing something reckless is therefore harmful to others by definition. On the other hand, if we believe that people should be allowed to hurt themselves if they can find someone to cover their medical bills, then the question becomes where do we draw the line? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet seems like a reasonable one. What about with a helmet? Motorcycles are inherently dangerous. But all road traffic is more dangerous than trains. Should people need a personal health insurance add-on to drive a car? What about eating unhealthy food? Even if the line is drawn clearly, now only the rich can afford to do certain dangerous things and everyone else can't. Due to money shifting into the private sector, less and less will be covered by state insurance, making things that are allowed even today (like many sports) to be off-limits to anyone middle-class and lower. Now we've turned a situation where everyone has reasonable but equal limits to one where the rich have no limits and everyone else has unreasonably strict limits.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mmmBacon 5y ago

It’s not correct to say that our DOT standards are out of date. In fact there is some debate about the Snell standard vs the DOT standard. The area is around the helmet impact rating. A higher rated impact helmet is generally more rigid and will potentially cause brain injury at lower speeds. Essentially for helmets you trade-off high speed impact survivability vs low speed injury protection. The claim of many riders, myself included is that crashes happen at lower speeds and thus a less rigid helmet is likely more optimal. Having said that there have been significant advances in helmet design in last few years that address low speed impact as well as meet the Snell standard. They do this by reducing the transfer of rotational energy on the user. See for example (6D helmet manufacturer): https://youtu.be/B6jI0w5UFLs https://youtu.be/B6jI0w5UFLs Having said all that a helmet without a chinstrap, such as this one, is basically like not wearing a helmet at all. In a crash, the helmet isn’t going to stay on. If the helmet doesn’t stay on, it’s not going to do anything.

somerandomqaguy 5y ago

>I really, really hope this isn't a Sikh-specific rehash of the "party hat" phenomenon in the USA. Guessing not. At least in Alberta, Sikhs have explicit exemptions from requiring helmets while operating a motorcycle[1]. I think BC and Manitoba do as well but I haven't checked their specific regulations. [1]https://www.alberta.ca/helmet-exemption-sikh.aspx https://www.alberta.ca/helmet-exemption-sikh.aspx

tweetle_beetle 5y ago
I'm really surprised that this would still be an issue in any Western countries with a Sikh population of any significance. This is hardly a new topic, as this UK news report from almost half a century ago about the 1973 "Wearing of helmets" regulation shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVe_Gzqgi8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVe_Gzqgi8 It took less than 3 years for an exemption to be put in place, and it came during a period of history that wasn't exactly friendly to immigrants and their descendants.