Motorcyclist wins turban ruling

lukin2006

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303897

I don't have a problem with this as long as he is willing to a sign waiver that if he is in need of medical attention resulting from a accident on his motorcycle that he will pay the full cost of treatment. But even then I doubt that would work because he would find some religious loophole to jump through.

nuffingman

I see a can of worms opening here. To deny him the usual rights to medical treatment could open debate as to whether smokers, rock climbers, rugby players, etc, etc should be able to receive treatment.

even flow?

Nothing new. The Sikh's can wear their turbans in the RCMP instead of the official uniform. That being said, why does anybody under 18 who is on a bicycle on a bike path have to wear a helmet if for a "religious" reason this guy dosen't who is probably, no not probably, he is at more risk to injure himself from an accident.

And to add to this. Just make the guys insurance really, really, really, expensive.

darkcrow

wow you guys are way behind the times. sikhs were exempt for wearing crash helmets in the uk since the 80's. although you guys do let them carry around their knives...

lukin2006

nuffingman wrote:

I see a can of worms opening here. To deny him the usual rights to medical treatment could open debate as to whether smokers, rock climbers, rugby players, etc, etc should be able to receive treatment.

The difference is he is breaking the law willingly and knows he is.

Kel Varnsen

I don't have much of a problem with this. I have always thought that if you were injured doing something in Canada that was against the law, rather than having some weak-ass fine, it should just be that your Provincial Health Card is considered not valid in the hospital.

I mean is a $100 seat belt fine really going to do much, probably not. But if a guy comes in with injuries from flying out the window of his car after not wearing his seatbelt, and you tell him he will have to pay the doctor's bill that might wake people up.

Pacomc79

beemster wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303897

I don't have a problem with this as long as he is willing to a sign waiver that if he is in need of medical attention resulting from a accident on his motorcycle that he will pay the full cost of treatment. But even then I doubt that would work because he would find some religious loophole to jump through.

let's just hope if he crashes... he dies.

If you're dumb and careless enough to not wear a helmet you don't freaking deserve treatment. It's a hell of a risk riding a motorcycle anyway.... you want to tempt fate religously...do so without holding other peoples money hostage to treat your dumbass.

He could always choose different turban friendly modes of transit.

but hey, hooray for freedom.

macgyver06

small victory for civil liberties.. and choice

good job turban guy!

Kel Varnsen

macgyver06 wrote:

small victory for civil liberties.. and choice

good job turban guy!

I am all for civil liberties, but what this article failed to mention (and that people outside of Canada might not be aware of), is that with universal health care if he gets into an accident, and not having a helmet causes him to require medical attention, it is tax dollars that are paying for it.

jeffbr

I'm a proponent of choice, and of personal responsibility. He should have the choice to do whatever he wants, but should bear the costs. His bad choices shouldn't result in any "social obligation" or personal cost to me.

I am opposed to helmet laws, but I wear a helmet when I ride. I'm opposed to mandatory airbag and seatbelt laws, but my cars have airbags and I wear a seatbelt.

Why can we tell a motorcycle rider that they must wear a helmet due to social costs, but we can't tell someone with a high BMI that they are banned from fast food due to social costs?

macgyver06

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am all for civil liberties, but what this article failed to mention (and that people outside of Canada might not be aware of), is that with universal health care if he gets into an accident, and not having a helmet causes him to require medical attention, it is tax dollars that are paying for it.

Freedom of Choice.. I think its stupid and crazy to not wear a helmet on a motorcycle... but its choice.. and this is more valuable than anything in your paragraph.

macgyver06

jeffbr wrote:

I'm a proponent of choice, and of personal responsibility. He should have the choice to do whatever he wants, but should bear the costs. His bad choices shouldn't result in any "social obligation" or personal cost to me.

I am opposed to helmet laws, but I wear a helmet when I ride. I'm opposed to mandatory airbag and seatbelt laws, but my cars have airbags and I wear a seatbelt.

Why can we tell a motorcycle rider that they must wear a helmet due to social costs, but we can't tell someone with a high BMI that they are banned from fast food due to social costs?

total bullshit and you know it. people go to the ER all the time...and its a pool of tax money that can treat these people... get over yourself... if you have it in your head that this guy could rob you of a couple tollars of tax money... than you are concerned where your tax money is going and thats a good thing...but you might want to check where the majority of your tax money is going...

and youve got it backwards... it shouldnt be someone telling him he is allowed to not wear a helmet... its telling him HE IS ALLOWED TO WEAR A HELMET

huge fucking difference... leave people alone and be more accepting..he isnt hurting a god damned thing and this is why he doesnt have to wear a helmet.

jeffbr

macgyver06 wrote:

and youve got it backwards... it shouldnt be someone telling him he is allowed to not wear a helmet... its telling him HE IS ALLOWED TO WEAR A HELMET

You seem to be a very confused young man. I generally can't parse a thing you say. I'm sure it makes sense to someone, though.

You seem to think choice comes without responsibility or consequence. You'd be wrong to think that.

Kel Varnsen

macgyver06 wrote:

total bullshit and you know it. people go to the ER all the time...and its a pool of tax money that can treat these people... get over yourself... if you have it in your head that this guy could rob you of a couple tollars of tax money... than you are concerned where your tax money is going and thats a good thing...but you might want to check where the majority of your tax money is going...

and youve got it backwards... it shouldnt be someone telling him he is allowed to not wear a helmet... its telling him HE IS ALLOWED TO WEAR A HELMET

huge fucking difference... leave people alone and be more accepting..he isnt hurting a god damned thing and this is why he doesnt have to wear a helmet.

Actually a large portion of my tax dollar goes to paying for universal health care. I have no problem with that and if he doesn't want to wear his helmet that is fine, but at the same time it is high risk illegal behaviour, and I think people injured in high risk illegal behaviour should not have their medical costs covered by the provincial government. Same thing if someone gets shot comitting armed robbery, he shouldn't get his health care costs covered either.

macgyver06

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Actually a large portion of my tax dollar goes to paying for universal health care. I have no problem with that and if he doesn't want to wear his helmet that is fine, but at the same time it is high risk illegal behaviour, and I think people injured in high risk illegal behaviour should not have their medical costs covered by the provincial government. Same thing if someone gets shot comitting armed robbery, he shouldn't get his health care costs covered either.

I can agree with this.

macgyver06

jeffbr wrote:

You seem to be a very confused young man. I generally can't parse a thing you say. I'm sure it makes sense to someone, though.

You seem to think choice comes without responsibility or consequence. You'd be wrong to think that.

just because you don't understand concepts...doesnt make me a confused young man.. it makes you a public moron.


just clearing this up for you.

jeffbr

macgyver06 wrote:

I can agree with this.

LOL. That's pretty much what I said. Please explain to me how that differs. What part of this do you agree with and how does it conflict with my post?

He just said the motorcyclist shouldn't have costs covered due to high risk behaviour. I said he should have the choice, but should bear the costs.

Pretty much the same thing, no?

darkcrow

ok there seems to be a lot of ignorance on this thread. Wearing a turban is a religious requirement. Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair and as such the turban is used to protect it.

This is not some sorta social fashion choice.

macgyver06

darkcrow wrote:

ok there seems to be a lot of ignorance on this thread. Wearing a turban is a religious requirement. Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair and as such the turban is used to protect it.

This is not some sorta social fashion choice.

of course...but even if it was... it should be ok.

jeffbr

darkcrow wrote:

ok there seems to be a lot of ignorance on this thread. Wearing a turban is a religious requirement. Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair and as such the turban is used to protect it.

This is not some sorta social fashion choice.

Being a religionist of any kind is a lifestyle choice.

macgyver06

jeffbr wrote:

Being a religionist of any kind is a lifestyle choice.

yeah??

redrock

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I think people injured in high risk illegal behaviour should not have their medical costs covered by the provincial government.

So if you cross a road against the light and get hit by a car you should not have your medical costs covered?

This is not a light hearted choice. People should try and educate themselves - try to understand why this is so important for the sikhs. Just a tiny bit of info here (yes... cut and paste from a google search...)

"The dastaar, as the Sikh turban is known, is an article of faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism. It is not to be regarded as mere cultural paraphernalia.

When a Sikh man or woman dons a turban, the turban ceases to be just a piece of cloth and becomes one and the same with the Sikh's head. The turban as well as the other articles of faith worn by Sikhs have an immense spiritual as well as temporal significance. The symbolisms of wearing a turban are many from it being regarded as a symbol of sovereignty, dedication, self-respect, courage and piety but the reason all practicing Sikhs wear the turban is just one - out of love and obedience of the wishes of the founders of their faith."

redrock

jeffbr wrote:

Being a religionist of any kind is a lifestyle choice.

The word 'religionist' is a bit harsh and out of order here. This man does not seem to be a zealot, just someone practising his faith.

macgyver06

redrock wrote:

The word 'religionist' is a bit harsh and out of order here. This man does not seem to be a zealot, just someone practising his faith.

its a useless argument with these people..thatswhy i just agreed with them... they either dont think things through...understand how the health care system works... i dont know what it is... but they arent smart.. lol

Kel Varnsen

redrock wrote:

So if you cross a road against the light and get hit by a car you should not have your medical costs covered?

This is not a light hearted choice. People should try and educate themselves - try to understand why this is so important for the sikhs. Just a tiny bit of info here (yes... cut and paste from a google search...)

"The dastaar, as the Sikh turban is known, is an article of faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism. It is not to be regarded as mere cultural paraphernalia.

When a Sikh man or woman dons a turban, the turban ceases to be just a piece of cloth and becomes one and the same with the Sikh's head. The turban as well as the other articles of faith worn by Sikhs have an immense spiritual as well as temporal significance. The symbolisms of wearing a turban are many from it being regarded as a symbol of sovereignty, dedication, self-respect, courage and piety but the reason all practicing Sikhs wear the turban is just one - out of love and obedience of the wishes of the founders of their faith."

If there is a big problem with people running in the streets and getting hit by cars, maybe they should take away their coverage. Besides if you get hit by a car while crossing the street it would probably be a lot more difficult to tell if your injuries were caused by you running illegally compared to a guy with head injuries caused by not wearing a helmet.

I fully understand that wearing a turban is not some light hearted choice you can just decide to make or not. But at the same time riding a motorcycle certainly is that type of choice.

even flow?

redrock wrote:

So if you cross a road against the light and get hit by a car you should not have your medical costs covered?

This is not a light hearted choice. People should try and educate themselves - try to understand why this is so important for the sikhs. Just a tiny bit of info here (yes... cut and paste from a google search...)

"The dastaar, as the Sikh turban is known, is an article of faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism. It is not to be regarded as mere cultural paraphernalia.

When a Sikh man or woman dons a turban, the turban ceases to be just a piece of cloth and becomes one and the same with the Sikh's head. The turban as well as the other articles of faith worn by Sikhs have an immense spiritual as well as temporal significance. The symbolisms of wearing a turban are many from it being regarded as a symbol of sovereignty, dedication, self-respect, courage and piety but the reason all practicing Sikhs wear the turban is just one - out of love and obedience of the wishes of the founders of their faith."

The million dollar idea! Make a helmet big enough with enough wind resistance to go over the turban. Then retire for life.

jeffbr

redrock wrote:

The word 'religionist' is a bit harsh and out of order here. This man does not seem to be a zealot, just someone practising his faith.

Fine, so his faith requires one thing, and the laws around his hobby require another. Which is more important to him?

jeffbr

macgyver06 wrote:

its a useless argument with these people..thatswhy i just agreed with them... they either dont think things through...understand how the health care system works... i dont know what it is... but they arent smart.. lol

That post had nothing to do with healthcare. It was about religion. Do try to keep up.

redrock

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Besides if you get hit by a car while crossing the street it would probably be a lot more difficult to tell if your injuries were caused by you running illegally compared to a guy with head injuries caused by not wearing a helmet..

If you are crossing the street against the light, your injuries are definitely caused by your personal choice of going against the rule. Not difficult to tell the difference. Just like this gentleman's choice of riding his motorcycle whilst fulfilling his religious obligations by wearing his turban. But I guess with the person jay walking, we're not talking 'foreign' religion.....

Evenflow?.... so.. when do you start designing? Though I think there's something about not putting anything on the turban.

For those that wish to take the time to read, here is what went on in the House of Lords in the UK a few years after the law of having to wear a helmet came into force. If some fuddy-duddy Lords can speak this way, why can't we be more tolerant of our difference? For those that talk about Health Care, note that the UK has a National Health Care system and these guys have the right to be looked after, even if they have a motorcycle accident!), after all, they pay for it via their taxes. http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublications/theturbanvictory/chapter2/

Restless Soul

jeffbr wrote:

I'm a proponent of choice, and of personal responsibility. He should have the choice to do whatever he wants, but should bear the costs. His bad choices shouldn't result in any "social obligation" or personal cost to me.

I am opposed to helmet laws, but I wear a helmet when I ride. I'm opposed to mandatory airbag and seatbelt laws, but my cars have airbags and I wear a seatbelt.

Why can we tell a motorcycle rider that they must wear a helmet due to social costs, but we can't tell someone with a high BMI that they are banned from fast food due to social costs?

A motorcyle is far more dangerous than an obese person! if it crashes it puts other people's lives in danger not just the drivers. Same for the seatbelt/airbag laws. If you're a car driver or a biker why should you put other people's lives at risk just because you want to be free from restraint? An obese person doesn't put other people's lives at risk, just their own.

TrixieCat

nuffingman wrote:

I see a can of worms opening here. To deny him the usual rights to medical treatment could open debate as to whether smokers, rock climbers, rugby players, etc, etc should be able to receive treatment.

He wears his turban because of his religious beliefs, not because he is choosing to smoke a cigarette of play a game of rugby.
I am curious to see how this case plays out.