Most western states have a concept of freedom of religious expression up to a point. Sometimes that means Christians can ignore employment or child protection laws, and sometimes it means Sikhs can take extra risks to ride a motorbike.
Sure, if they crash they're more likely to get a head injury that the public purse has to pay for. But that theoretical amount is probably tiny compared to all the dumb stuff everyone else in the country is doing that contributes towards healthcare costs.
Laws and state support are both about finding the impossible balance between control, freedom, responsibility and cost.
They're not necessary, they're just a very good idea. So good, in fact, that a lot of states make them compulsory when riding a motorbike.
But sometimes states decide that, even if they are a good idea, there are other things that take precedence. Even if that other thing is net detrimental to public health.
You can disagree with the decision. I happen to not think that religious rights should trump public health. But it's entirely reasonable to make exemptions when there is a conflict of priority.
And, in this case, there's probably enough evidence from other states that have this exemption to make a reasoned public health choice. The UK have had it since the 70s, for example.
This is exactly how it works in the UK and has been since the 70s. Likewise Sikh officers in the police and military are exempt from wearing regular helmets also. It's really not that big a deal, and a good example of how the balancing of different considerations around religious tolerance can occur in a liberal democracy.
I can understand the challenges of Sikhs, or other turban-wearing religions, and standard motorcycle/cycling helmets.
However I think the legislation should be on the helmet and other safety industries to ensure production of some safety device for people to wear that fairly accommodates their needs. This isn't just a bigger helmet, and likely needs investment in safety organisations to research what works.
The law requirement for helmets is one meant to protect people, same with safety with seatbelts or even more specific ones in other industries.
As a motorcyclist, cyclist and driver, I'd like to see more inclusion in law, rather than these sorts of exceptions. We have a responsibility to properly accommodate someone else's specific needs, but also ensure their safety.
> We have a responsibility to properly accommodate someone else's specific needs, but also ensure their safety.
You're not ensuring their safety by forcing them to wear helmets. Some statistics for bi-cyclists show that helmet-wearers take greater risk, effectively increasing their risk of injury or death. We don't have similar data for motorcycles, it may well be a different tradeoff.
I disagree with the premise that we need to make such decisions for people. If we really followed through with this safety ideal, we should ban all two-wheelers, they're the riskiest way to take part in traffic.
First of all, why should you be forced to ride with a helmet?
Your argument seems to be cost to "the public insurer", but I don't think that's a clear cut way to save money, it really depends on the insurance. For health/disability insurance, fatalities will be cheaper than a crippling injury over a lifetime, so from a cost perspective, it may well be best to optimize for lowest survival rate.
I wonder if there has been a study on how effective the sikh turban is as a motorcycle helmet, I mean it's probably not as good a helmet, but it is basically a large amount of padding around the head so it's going to provide some protection.
As i write this comment I have my grandpas turban in one hand, and my motorcycle helmet in the other. I like to believe that I was raised to be reasonable when it comes to religious application. I’ll take the full-face everytime.
Just scrap the helmet requirement altogether, but let the insurance companies charge wildly different rates based on whether you wear a helmet or not, so long as the rates are in line with the actual risk.
My assumption is that the person gets a ticket regardless of their religion if they are wearing neither a helmet or a turban.
If your only options to avoid a ticket are a turban or a motorcycle helmet, I think the rational choice for a non-Sikh is the motorcycle helmet. "Gaming the system" doesn't quite work in this situation.
Unlikely. A Sikh's headdress is their uncut hair wrapped in cloth, so the size and structure of that is very variable. It's not feasible to make a helmet that fits over that without leaving a lot of space, and space makes helmets ineffective.
[+] [-] Jemm|7 years ago|reply
Then scrap the helmet law for everyone.
Why do people driving 3 wheeled cars that have roll cages and seat belts need helmets but religious people do no? Makes no sense to me.
[+] [-] dominicr|7 years ago|reply
Sure, if they crash they're more likely to get a head injury that the public purse has to pay for. But that theoretical amount is probably tiny compared to all the dumb stuff everyone else in the country is doing that contributes towards healthcare costs.
Laws and state support are both about finding the impossible balance between control, freedom, responsibility and cost.
[+] [-] a008t|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucozade|7 years ago|reply
They're not necessary, they're just a very good idea. So good, in fact, that a lot of states make them compulsory when riding a motorbike.
But sometimes states decide that, even if they are a good idea, there are other things that take precedence. Even if that other thing is net detrimental to public health.
You can disagree with the decision. I happen to not think that religious rights should trump public health. But it's entirely reasonable to make exemptions when there is a conflict of priority.
And, in this case, there's probably enough evidence from other states that have this exemption to make a reasoned public health choice. The UK have had it since the 70s, for example.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanhunter|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmacedo|7 years ago|reply
However I think the legislation should be on the helmet and other safety industries to ensure production of some safety device for people to wear that fairly accommodates their needs. This isn't just a bigger helmet, and likely needs investment in safety organisations to research what works.
The law requirement for helmets is one meant to protect people, same with safety with seatbelts or even more specific ones in other industries.
As a motorcyclist, cyclist and driver, I'd like to see more inclusion in law, rather than these sorts of exceptions. We have a responsibility to properly accommodate someone else's specific needs, but also ensure their safety.
[+] [-] yhoneycomb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeroname|7 years ago|reply
You're not ensuring their safety by forcing them to wear helmets. Some statistics for bi-cyclists show that helmet-wearers take greater risk, effectively increasing their risk of injury or death. We don't have similar data for motorcycles, it may well be a different tradeoff.
I disagree with the premise that we need to make such decisions for people. If we really followed through with this safety ideal, we should ban all two-wheelers, they're the riskiest way to take part in traffic.
[+] [-] nasmorn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lighttower|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adetrest|7 years ago|reply
If you're blind, you aren't allowed to drive a car. If you can't wear a helmet then why should you be allowed to ride without one?
I'm all for inclusion and respecting others' practices, but this is short-sighted.
[+] [-] zeroname|7 years ago|reply
Your argument seems to be cost to "the public insurer", but I don't think that's a clear cut way to save money, it really depends on the insurance. For health/disability insurance, fatalities will be cheaper than a crippling injury over a lifetime, so from a cost perspective, it may well be best to optimize for lowest survival rate.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cwmma|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roflchoppa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fipple|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] village-idiot|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickg_zill|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakamau|7 years ago|reply
If your only options to avoid a ticket are a turban or a motorcycle helmet, I think the rational choice for a non-Sikh is the motorcycle helmet. "Gaming the system" doesn't quite work in this situation.
[+] [-] supahfly_remix|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dominicr|7 years ago|reply