is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Toronto (ABC Live) The Road Safety or religious freedom which one you opt first? A Canadian court has decided this question in Ontario.
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 07:05 on March 7th, 2008
jatinder, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Many Motorcyclists were watching the outcome of this as many abhor wearing a helmet, preferring the wind in thier hair as they ride along. California allow motorcyclists to ride helmetless, as they view any law requiring a helmet a slight against their personal freedoms.
I would not be surprised if this man (Sikh) was allowed to ride helmetless, I am sure many die hard motorcyclists would readily join this religion (though never practise it) just so they can do the same.
Though their turban would not be alike, with many preferring a Harley David turban style hankerchief many wear anyways.
at 08:34 on March 7th, 2008
I agree with the judge: if this guy high-sides in traffic, the public (many of whom will not share his religious beliefs) must share the expense of his medical care. I also call BS on this: Sikhs wear head-fitting turbans beneath helmets all the time. (In British Columbia, there's a huge Sikh cruiser scene; one of the guys I trained with was a fiftysomething truck driver who wanted the opposite of an 18-wheeler)
Also, California does require riders to wear helmets. Only a few states don't require helmets to some degree. In the US, though, if you crash, it's your *ss: no social healthcare to fall back on. Remember: riding a bike is inherently cool: play it safe and wear protective gear: it's all that's between you and a sad story. None of the riders I know (some of whom are extremely serious knee-down types) would ever even consider riding without helmets.
at 19:51 on March 7th, 2008
True, Jordan, you are screwed in the states if you wrap your bike around a semi