
Ontario to exempt Sikhs from wearing helmets while riding motorcycles - eruditely
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/breaking-news/ontario-to-exempt-sikhs-from-wearing-helmets-while-riding-motorcycles-113745.aspx
======
Jemm
"our government also believes that individuals have personal accountability
and responsibility with respect to their own well-being"

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
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.

------
a008t
If helmets are in fact necessary, they should not be exempt. If they are not
necessary, everyone should be exempt.

~~~
lucozade
> If helmets are in fact necessary

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.

~~~
writepub
It isn't reasonable to make compromises on public health for religion. In
fact, the separation of church and state as a fundamental tenet of Western
society was implemented for this exact thing.

What is reasonable is for the religious to make completely acceptable
exemptions while performing certain tasks, like biking, for their own safety,
and that of the the public, not to mention tax dollars saved in the treatment
of accidents from those disobeying common sense laws like helmets.

~~~
lucozade
> the separation of church and state as a fundamental tenet of Western society

I think you may be confusing Western society with the US. It's not a tenet,
fundamental or otherwise, of many Western societies.

But otherwise, I would tend to agree with you. Some people don't. But I don't
have a serious objection to the decision even though I wouldn't have made it
myself.

~~~
craftyguy
It's not even a real tenet in the US. Politics and national/state/local
policies here have extremely heavy religious overtones. There is absolutely no
way that a publicly non-religious person would be elected to any meaningful
public office.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There is absolutely no way that a publicly non-religious person would be
> elected to any meaningful public office.

Jesse Ventura, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, and Jared Huffman, among others,
would seem to refute this. I mean, I assume Governor's offices and the House
of Representatives qualify as “meaningful public office”.

~~~
craftyguy
~4 people over the past 200+ years is not a meaningful demonstration of any
tolerance towards non-religious folks holding public office.

~~~
dragonwriter
> ~4 people over the past 200+ years

No, that's just over the last 20 (no plus) years; each of the identified
people has been elected to Congress or a Governor's office in 1998 or later.

It's true that the preceding 200+ years of US history had a substantially
lower (but nonzero, even in comparable offices) average frequency of publicly
non-religious office holders, but that's about how the US _was_ not how it
_is_.

------
seanhunter
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.

~~~
sneak
There is nothing democratic about unequal application of the law.

~~~
cafard
Nor is there anything undemocratic, is there?

~~~
writepub
It's discriminatory against those not granted exceptions.

The fabled separation of church and state was proposed for this exact thing -
equal application of the law regardless of religion.

~~~
seanhunter
It's not a situation which I personally support, but in the UK (which is the
example I gave) there is no separation of church and state. The head of state
(the queen) is also the head of the official church, and various religious
figures are granted automatic membership of the upper chamber of the
legislature.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_Kingdom)

My quick googling (eg
[http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_cs_can.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_cs_can.htm)
) says that Canada has no equivalent to the "Establishment Clause" in the US
constitution, and also doesn't have a strict separation.

------
dmacedo
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.

~~~
zeroname
> 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.

~~~
TotempaaltJ
> You're not ensuring their safety by forcing them to wear helmets

You _may not be_ ensuring. The data for cyclists may very well not extrapolate
to motorcyclists.

> I disagree with the premise that we need to make such decisions for people

Interesting! I think ensuring citizen safety _is_ something the state should
be (in part) responsible for, and history has shown that people are often too
ignorant of the risks to do it through education alone. Do you also disagree
with regulation requiring seatbelts?

------
nasmorn
That is great news for Ontarios organ donor program

~~~
lighttower
Is there a religious contravention against donating organs?

------
adetrest
There are more straightforward and less costly to the public insurer ways to
die than earning the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

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
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.

------
cwmma
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.

~~~
fipple
The problem with the turban is that it will detach from your head the instant
you touch the ground, and in doing so might wrap around your neck.

~~~
kranner
I grew up in Punjab so I've seen probably hundreds of instances of turbans
falling off during road accidents and general brawling. I've never heard of a
turban wrapping itself around someone's neck as the result of a fall. They are
tied in intricate designs, not just wrapped around the head like a scarf.

They can however easily fall off even before the person makes contact with the
ground.

------
village-idiot
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.

------
patrickg_zill
Do you have to prove that you are a Sikh in order to avoid being charged, if
you are given a ticket?

~~~
jakamau
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.

~~~
slededit
Police can’t systematically give tickets for things that aren’t illegal.
Mistakes happen and the courts sort it out - but if that was the policy there
would be huge problems.

------
supahfly_remix
Could a special helmet be designed for Sikhs?

~~~
dominicr
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.

~~~
lighttower
Elon Musk can design an inflatable submarine like headdress enclosure that
will be 2X better than any helmet and half the weight. Plus it collapses down
to a Walnut sized headband ornament when the rider is not in motion. The
submarine's inflation mechanism is powered by the airflow proportional to the
motorcycle speed.

