Zekes Exempt From Motor Cycle Helmet Law

[rbacon]

He did laps at 110 km/h to prove turban held tight

Observant Sikh challenges Ontario motorcycle regulations

KIRK MAKIN

From Friday's Globe and Mail

February 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM EST

BRAMPTON, Ont. — A devout Sikh all his life, Baljinder Badesha never imagined that his religious devotion would compel him to race a motorcycle around an Ontario speedway to test whether turbans unravel at high speeds.

The bizarre image of Mr. Badesha's experiment last year - conducted under the auspices of the Ontario Human Rights Commission - was evoked during a constitutional challenge to a law that forces motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.

Ontario Court Judge James Blacklock was told yesterday that, in order to disprove a Crown theory that turbans unravel at high speed and cause accidents, Mr. Badesha drove around Cayuga Speedway at 110 kilometres an hour.

His turban held fast.

Baljinder Singh breaks the law Thursday by riding his motorcycle without a helmet in Brampton, Ont. Manitoba and British Columbia exempt Sikhs from such rules. (J.P. Moczulzki for The Globe and Mail)

Mr. Badesha and the human rights commission maintain the helmet law discriminates against Sikhs because their religion obliges them to cover their long hair with nothing more than a turban.

"Observant Sikhs are put in the impossible position of choosing between ordinary, everyday activities and observing their faith," said lawyer Scott Hutchison, who is representing the OHRC. "That is religious discrimination."

Mel Sokosky, a lawyer for Mr. Badesha, said his client is far too religious to consider compromising his beliefs. "Mr. Badesha's desire is not a trivial pursuit," he said. "This is not a game he is playing. He isn't here to waste the court's time. This is a matter of primary importance to Mr. Badesha."

In an interview, Mr. Hutchison said the Cayuga turban test became necessary after the Crown declared that an expert it had hired proved that turbans unravel rapidly in 100 km/h winds.

The Crown's test had been carried out by a professional engineer who purchased a mannequin head, mounted it on a stick and then placed the assemblage in a wind tunnel.

However, Mr. Hutchison was unable to find a documented case anywhere in the world where a Sikh motorcyclist's turban had unravelled. Skeptical, he persuaded the OHRC to authorize its own test.

After he confronted the Crown with the dramatically different test result, prosecutors conceded that their engineer had grossly miscalculated the force of the wind he had generated to batter the imitation head, Mr. Hutchison said.

In fact, the device had been subjected to a 300 km/h wind.

Mr. Badesha, a 39-year-old father of four who immigrated to Canada in 1989 and had been an avid motorcyclist in his native India, said in an interview yesterday that he was charged in mid-2005, about a month after he purchased his 2003 Honda Shadow.

He noted that Sikh soldiers have never worn helmets, and argued that Sikhs should be left alone to make their own decisions about motorcycle gear.

"Who cares?" Mr. Badesha said. "Everybody ends up dead anyway. People die in cars too. In life, you have to take risks, no matter what."

While the Crown case initially questioned the sincerity of Mr. Badesha's religious convictions, its main argument is now based on increased costs to the health system, should helmetless Sikh motorcycle riders end up suffering head injuries.

Mr. Hutchison and co-counsel Owen Rees disputed this contention yesterday. They pointed to a study they had done that concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year.

The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would increase from $151,700,000 to $151,834,685 - a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province's annual health-care budget.

Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. "Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost," he said.

India and Britain exempt Sikhs from wearing helmets, as do Manitoba and British Columbia, where a human-rights challenge precipitated the exemption.

[Muddy]

I had a certain amount of sympathy for Sihks joining the RCMP and wearing a Turban. The Stetson was tradition,not a law. This is a law and all people should be equal before the law. In India Sihk military pilots wear helmets! They wear a symbolic mini turban to accomodate. Why not in this case? Having a car licence or a motorcycle licence is a privledge that can and should be revoked if your not willing to obey the laws of the land.

[Lazarus]

I am a motorcyclist and am a firm believer in the ATGATT (All the gear, all the time) principle. That being said, I have no problem with an orthodox Sikh wearing a full turban while riding. It a personal religious choice. As for helmet laws, there is a subset of riders, namely HD riders who skirt around the laws by wearing next to useless beanie skull caps held on by an elastic band. In my opinion, a full turban probably offers a hell of a lot more protection and padding to a rider then one of those bloody stupid skull caps. But like I said, I'm a firm believer in ATGATT so am a wee bit biased.

Riding a bike is a matter of freedom that most cagers don't understand or relate too. The freedom to ride your style of bike, the type of gear you want to wear and the freedom to be part of a community that transcends race, religion and gender. The only requirement to joining that community is having a bike or being a rider.

Now, if you cagers really want to make biking safer, then do us riders a few bloody big favours:

1) open your flippin' eyes

2) stop driving and chatting on your flippin' mobile/cell phones

3) respect our right to be on the road with you

4) stop trying to run up your kill points by forcing us off the road.

Bloody cagers are the biggest threat to the health and well being of all riders, be they turbaned or wearing a full faced helmet.

PS: a cage is a car/truck and a cager is a driver of said vehicles who does not ride a bike.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Lazarus

[Topaz]

One radio station I was listening to today was talking about this topic. One caller said that he was not a racist any sense of the word but he said when people from other countries come here to Canada they come for what we have to offer. Canada has LAWS that has to be obey by ALL Canadians and that included "New" Canadians. So the law said you HAVE to wear a helmet, you wear a helmet or don't ride your bike. He also said that we are always making allowances for people because of their religion and if we keep doing that Canada will be changing to please the new citizens and not enforcing the Canadian laws. It doesn't make sense for people to move here in Canada and then try to change OUR laws to suit them.

[Lazarus]

One radio station I was listening to today was talking about this topic. One caller said that he was not a racist any sense of the word but he said when people from other countries come here to Canada they come for what we have to offer. Canada has LAWS that has to be obey by ALL Canadians and that included "New" Canadians. So the law said you HAVE to wear a helmet, you wear a helmet or don't ride your bike. He also said that we are always making allowances for people because of their religion and if we keep doing that Canada will be changing to please the new citizens and not enforcing the Canadian laws. It doesn't make sense for people to move here in Canada and then try to change OUR laws to suit them.

Many in the motorcycling community see the current helmet laws as an unwanted and unwarranted infringement of our right to choose what we will or wont wear as safety equipment. And as I stated before, there are those that skirt around the existing helmet laws by wearing non-Snell or DOT approved beanie cap, caps so small that they could almost be used as Jewish yarmulka's or as a zucchetto by Catholic priests and popes and provide but as much protection of those religious caps. Personally, I wear a full face helmet and full leathers when riding, but that is my choice not because it is the law.

Again, the wearing a turban is not a real safety hazard, the real safety hazard faced by all bikers are cagers who are too engrossed in their cell phones, stereos, coffees or what have you and don't pay attention to what is going on around them on the road.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Lazarus

[Borg]

I had a certain amount of sympathy for Sihks joining the RCMP and wearing a Turban. The Stetson was tradition,not a law. This is a law and all people should be equal before the law. In India Sihk military pilots wear helmets! They wear a symbolic mini turban to accomodate. Why not in this case? Having a car licence or a motorcycle licence is a privledge that can and should be revoked if your not willing to obey the laws of the land.

All "those people" - who serve in their army, navy and air forces - wear a hard hat / helmet of some type - including attached breathing equipment. Their military is very professional and accepts "devout" members.

This is nothing more than an excuse.

Therefore not only do I not support this schitzen disturber - who in my eyes is nothing more than an ass who wants his own way at any cost - who came here and IS NOT willing to live by our laws - but I condemn stupid, weak kneed canuckleheads for not standing up and demanding laws be obeyed.

Just another hole in the wall that will someday come tumbling down because canada does not stand for anything other than "giving in" and disguises it as tolerance.

Canada is weak and will not be a great place for much longer. Thanks to liberal barstards.

Borg

[scribblet]

I suppose if they make a choice not to protect their heads, then subsequently have an accident causing a head injury, then they should not be covered by our health care.

[Argus]

I suppose if they make a choice not to protect their heads, then subsequently have an accident causing a head injury, then they should not be covered by our health care.

Agreed. This is where community interest comes in. We're the ones footing the bill if this clown has an accident. And he WILL have an accident. No one rides a motorcycle without having accidents. As long as you're covered by public health care there is no such thing as "infringement" of your "rights" to ride around naked. We limit how fast you go, and what you wear. Deal with it or don't ride motorcycles.

[Renegade]

Agreed. This is where community interest comes in. We're the ones footing the bill if this clown has an accident. And he WILL have an accident. No one rides a motorcycle without having accidents. As long as you're covered by public health care there is no such thing as "infringement" of your "rights" to ride around naked. We limit how fast you go, and what you wear. Deal with it or don't ride motorcycles.

So where else would you apply that reasoning? Would you ban higher-risk sports such as sky-diving because of the increased cost to the healthcare system?

Personally I believe he should be allowed to ride with no helmet if he chooses, but he should be required to pay an additional risk premium for health care coverage commesurate to the risk of riding without a helmet.

-----

What's with the use of "Zekes" btw?

Edited February 16, 2008 by Renegade

[geoffrey]

Anyone should be able to ride without a helmet, if they choose to opt out of public health care and notify their private insurers of that choice.

Does he expect me to cover the risk of his beliefs? How can he justify that? I am to pay for all Sikh's risk, not even founded in rational thought? That's not a modern society.

[Lazarus]

Anyone should be able to ride without a helmet, if they choose to opt out of public health care and notify their private insurers of that choice.

Does he expect me to cover the risk of his beliefs? How can he justify that? I am to pay for all Sikh's risk, not even founded in rational thought? That's not a modern society.

Riding is an inherently dangerous sport, and even wearing a full faced helmet and ATGATT does not guarantee that a rider will walk away from an "off" uninjured or even alive. The majority of those killed or badly injured while riding do wear full helmets, but if you get t-boned or have some dumb-assed cager pull out in front you or change lanes without looking, you are going to get hurt, no matter what amount of gear you are wearing. ATGATT does increase your odds of survival and minimalizing the amount of injuries you receive during a crash but it does not make a rider invulnerable in the least. The GF Strong rehab centre is full of people who were ATGATT at the time of their motorcycle crash.

But lets be honest here, this whole argument against a Sikh rider wearing a turban as opposed to a helmet is not about motorcycle safety or even the law, but rather its just another shot in the dark against non-white, non-Christian immigrants pure and simple. If it was all about motorcycle rider safety and the medical cost associated with motorcycling cost, then you lot should be ranting and raving against those riders who wear beanie caps, along with shorts, t-shirts and sneakers while riding.

As I said before, I am a rider and I enjoy the sport and will ride at every opportunity afforded me, and each time I ride, I put myself at huge risk. I also live in BC where Sikhs are already exempted from the Provincial helmet laws and have a couple of good riding buddies who are Sikhs and you know what? I think I have seen a total of maybe 3 turbaned Sikh riders, mainly old men on small bikes in the 125 cc class, since the law changed.

The majority of riders, including Sikhs wear helmets out of personal choice just like the majority of non-Sikh riders. but I cannot tell you how many n00B's and Squids I have seen out on the road wearing next to nothing in the way of gear. Those hundreds of sweet young things (biker bitches) on the back of a HD wearing only a halter top, short shorts, flip-flops and a beanie cap have the potential to cost you the tax payer a lot more in medical costs then the odd turbaned Sikh riders, because there are a hell of lot more of those ditzes on the road then turbaned Sikhs. Road rash may sound funny, but when one of those sweet young things has an off and slides on the unforgiving pavement on her bare skin, it will cost a small fortune in skin graphs to repair her.

Same hold true for Squids (aka: SQUirrely kIDS or Stupidly Quick, Under-dressed, Imminently Dead) roaring about on RR 600 or litre sport bikes with nothing in the way of protection then a helmet. There are a hell of a lot more Squids on the road then turbaned Sikhs.

And the sad fact of the matter is, the majority of bike crashes are caused by other road users, aka CAGERS who are not paying attention to what is going on about them. I have a 20 minute commute to work and I figure I am lucky if I only see two dumb-assed cagers pulling a dumb-assed stunt, ie talking on their cell phones instead of paying complete attention to the road or changing lanes without checking to see if I am there, or better yet, riding my rear tyre knowing full well that my braking distance is well under half of theirs.

Riding is all about freedom, something you CAGERS really don't get. And while I personally think that anyone who rides un-ATGATT is a fool and is playing Russian Roulette with a gun with 5 chambers loaded instead of one, I respect their choice and freedom to make that choice. Same holds true of orthodox Sikhs who wish to ride and wear a turban. Get over yourselves and leave us bikers, be we Sikhs, HD bikers babes, Squids or your neighbor next door alone.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And the sad fact of the matter is, the majority of bike crashes are caused by other road users, aka CAGERS who are not paying attention to what is going on about them. I have a 20 minute commute to work and I figure I am lucky if I only see two dumb-assed cagers pulling a dumb-assed stunt, ie talking on their cell phones instead of paying complete attention to the road or changing lanes without checking to see if I am there, or better yet, riding my rear tyre knowing full well that my braking distance is well under half of theirs....

This is standard anti "cager" ranting and has nothing to do with the actual topic. Do you know what we call stupid bikers regardless of what they wear?.....Organ Donors.

I haven't seen a motorcycle on the road for two months....I wonder how they get around in winter?

Edited February 16, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Riding is all about freedom, something you CAGERS really don't get. And while I personally think that anyone who rides un-ATGATT is a fool and is playing Russian Roulette with a gun with 5 chambers loaded instead of one, I respect their choice and freedom to make that choice. Same holds true of orthodox Sikhs who wish to ride and wear a turban. Get over yourselves and leave us bikers, be we Sikhs, HD bikers babes, Squids or your neighbor next door alone.

I would agree that many drivers don't show an awareness of bikes that they should or take into account the vulnerability of the people on them. On the other hand I see bikers who are guilty of the same kind of stupidity. There are boneheads on either side of the spectrum. Biker boneheads just have a shorter life expectancy.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would agree that many drivers don't show an awareness of bikes that they should or take into account the vulnerability of the people on them. On the other hand I see bikers who are guilty of the same kind of stupidity. There are boneheads on either side of the spectrum. Biker boneheads just have a shorter life expectancy.

I agree 100%.....having been a licensed "biker" since the 1960's. Biker boneheads can't afford to be just as stupid.

[geoffrey]

And while I personally think that anyone who rides un-ATGATT is a fool and is playing Russian Roulette with a gun with 5 chambers loaded instead of one, I respect their choice and freedom to make that choice.

I respect that freedom to. I just don't feel like paying for it.

As a big proponent of private medicare, I'm completely in favour of paying extra for my additional risks. I don't think anyone should pay for my increased risk because of backcountry skiing or mountain biking. I should pay for that. And so should those that ride motorbikes.

But because we have a public system, we all have to act in the best interest of the whole and limit our risks as much as possible. Wearing a helmet is not a big deal.

Nevertheless, it comes back to using religion to make exceptions to the law. Religion is not based on any rational thought, or argument, and shouldn't be used to justify legislative changes in a democratic country. There is no evidence that Sikhman is going to hell (or wherever they go) for having his head unwrapped. Until he can prove otherwise, he can wear a helmet.

In civilized countries, we believe in science and facts. Let's see some facts before we make legislative changes. Irrational beliefs are not grounds for exceptions. Show me real factual consequences and I'll listen. There isn't any. So why are we changing the law?

Edited February 16, 2008 by geoffrey

[Lazarus]

I would agree that many drivers don't show an awareness of bikes that they should or take into account the vulnerability of the people on them. On the other hand I see bikers who are guilty of the same kind of stupidity. There are boneheads on either side of the spectrum. Biker boneheads just have a shorter life expectancy.

Within the biking community, those riders are collectively known as SQUIDS or n00Bs and are looked down upon, mainly because they give the rest of us a bad name. Much the same way a radical Muslim or Christian gives their fellow believers a bad name.

[Lazarus]

I respect that freedom to. I just don't feel like paying for it.

As a big proponent of private medicare, I'm completely in favour of paying extra for my additional risks. I don't think anyone should pay for my increased risk because of backcountry skiing or mountain biking. I should pay for that. And so should those that ride motorbikes.

But because we have a public system, we all have to act in the best interest of the whole and limit our risks as much as possible. Wearing a helmet is not a big deal.

Nevertheless, it comes back to using religion to make exceptions to the law. Religion is not based on any rational thought, or argument, and shouldn't be used to justify legislative changes in a democratic country. There is no evidence that Sikhman is going to hell (or wherever they go) for having his head unwrapped. Until he can prove otherwise, he can wear a helmet.

In civilized countries, we believe in science and facts. Let's see some facts before we make legislative changes. Irrational beliefs are not grounds for exceptions. Show me real factual consequences and I'll listen. There isn't any. So why are we changing the law?

Religious freedom is a hallmark of our society. We all have to right to believe, pray, dress and keep with our religious beliefs if we so wish. If you wish to smear your belly with blue mud in order to stay in good terms with the Great God of Whatchamacallhim, then do so. Same hold true with orthodox Sikhs wearing their turbans. We also have the right to ride, although there more then a few jokers who would love nothing more then to ban bikes. When laws run counter to religious belief, especially with such minor matters, then the laws are amended. It harms no one and makes it fair for all. The only time when the law should run counter to religious belief is when said belief is used cause harm and injury to others. A Sikh riding while wearing a turban will cause about as much harm to others as those who ride while wearing nothing more then a tiny, thin plastic skull cap.

At one time in the not so distant past, it was illegal for shops and bars to be open on Sundays because Sunday was the Christian day of pray. This was inherently prejudicial towards non-Christians and that law has since been amended. Laws have to balance both the public good with personal freedom, any law that restricts personal freedom such as the helmet laws are draconian and not needed. The funny thing is, many here how are ranting and raving about this Sikh man fighting for his rights to ride a motorcycle while wearing a turban instead of a helmet are the same people who bitch about their own personal liberties being under attack by the Government and laws. The stink of the hypocrisies is raising towards the heavens.

[Borg]

This is not a religious issue - it is being faked as one.

Otherwise every military person in India is not a member of this religion.

Unfortunately every canucklhead here is willing to argue the point as religion based - when in fact in his own country of origin he would be wearing a helmet if in the military.

It is simply him - creating the issue and lying about the reason.

Laws are for everyone or for no one. There is no middle ground.

He does not like it - tell him to pound salt and walk.

Borg

[Wilber]

Within the biking community, those riders are collectively known as SQUIDS or n00Bs and are looked down upon, mainly because they give the rest of us a bad name. Much the same way a radical Muslim or Christian gives their fellow believers a bad name.

So why do you lump all drivers under the same label?

[Lazarus]

This is not a religious issue - it is being faked as one.

Otherwise every military person in India is not a member of this religion.

Unfortunately every canucklhead here is willing to argue the point as religion based - when in fact in his own country of origin he would be wearing a helmet if in the military.

It is simply him - creating the issue and lying about the reason.

Laws are for everyone or for no one. There is no middle ground.

He does not like it - tell him to pound salt and walk.

Borg

I guess you cannot grasp the difference between a pious orthodox Sikh and a non-orthodox Sikh. I've been looking at on line photos of Sikh soldiers and guess what, they are turbaned for the most part. It is one of their commandments that Sikh males not cut their facial or head hair and to keep it clean and turbaned at all times.

Actually if you do a study of the Sikh religion, you will find that it has quiet a progressive religion compared to its Hindu roots. They believe in monotheism, equality between the genders and were against the Hindu caste system. And as soldiers, they are almost second to none, especially in the old British Empire armies.

[geoffrey]

It is one of their commandments that Sikh males not cut their facial or head hair and to keep it clean and turbaned at all times.

Tough. That's not rational. So our laws not need to reflect that. If someone can make their beliefs work with society, great. Otherwise, too bad. There can't be special exceptions for irrational behavoir.

My religion tells me that I should dance in the streets naked every second Tuesday and to carry a 5 foot broadsword to work. Should society adapt?

Why the difference? Isn't all religious freedom the same?

They believe in monotheism, equality between the genders and were against the Hindu caste system. And as soldiers, they are almost second to none, especially in the old British Empire armies.

Monothesism is progressive?

[Borg]

I guess you cannot grasp the difference between a pious orthodox Sikh and a non-orthodox Sikh. I've been looking at on line photos of Sikh soldiers and guess what, they are turbaned for the most part. It is one of their commandments that Sikh males not cut their facial or head hair and to keep it clean and turbaned at all times.

Actually if you do a study of the Sikh religion, you will find that it has quiet a progressive religion compared to its Hindu roots. They believe in monotheism, equality between the genders and were against the Hindu caste system. And as soldiers, they are almost second to none, especially in the old British Empire armies.

"For the most part?"

Having had the opportunity to dodge real bullets while on exchange with about 800 of them not more than 15 years ago I can assure you that you know not of what you speak - unless of course every one of them was not a devout member of their religion.

And they were turbaned. All tied up on the top point of their head. And covered with a cloth.

Every one of those soldiers wore a helmet. And every one of them made a point of wearing it when we were being fired upon.

And for that matter every fighter pilot in their air force wore one as well as well. Come to think of it so did the helicopter pilots. Cannot speak of the transport types - never saw any in the front.

I suppose not one of those guys was a devout member of the religion.

That PIOUS person is nothing more than an opportunistic liar out to make a name for himself and his lawyer.

You and your ilk will support him for his "religious ways".

And we will fall for it.

All in the name of tolerance.

After all, it is the canadian way.

Borg

Edited February 17, 2008 by Borg

[Lazarus]

So why do you lump all drivers under the same label?

After being t-boned by a cage running a red, being knocked off my bike a couple of times by cagers screaming out of driveways, having countless cagers switching lanes without looking or signaling and forced off the highway into the grass meridian once, I have come to the conclusion that all cagers are to be considered to be guilty until proven otherwise. Which pretty much sums up the attitude of most bikers.

[Muddy]

Borg, you will notice that our posts are ignored by those who want to make this into a racist incident. Having a bike licence is not unlike a car licence. Rules are to be followed or don`t ride or drive. We all have to buckle up in a car or truck. A head gear is part of riding a bike. I would not think of riding without mine,nor do I drive without a seat belt.Laws are for all. This particuler Sihk knows full well he must weara helmet. Otherwise how did he get his licence in the first place?

[Wilber]

After being t-boned by a cage running a red, being knocked off my bike a couple of times by cagers screaming out of driveways, having countless cagers switching lanes without looking or signaling and forced off the highway into the grass meridian once, I have come to the conclusion that all cagers are to be considered to be guilty until proven otherwise. Which pretty much sums up the attitude of most bikers.

Bikes are often hard to see. Bikers often act very quickly when riding in traffic. It's the nature of the beast. A few years ago I was on a four lane road driving a panel van with no rear side windows. I was in the left lane passing someone when an idiot on a crotch rocket came right up on my ass, so close I couldn't see him in my mirrors. I completed the pass and started to pull into the right lane but as soon as there was a gap this fool had shot into the right lane to pass me on the right. Luckily I got a glimpse of him in my side mirror before I ran him into the ditch. I then watched him disappear into the distance pulling the same stunt several more times. I sometimes wonder if he is still alive. Some bikers have given a lot of drivers the same opinion of them.