Motorcyclist wins turban ruling

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.

Kel Varnsen

The other question too is where do you draw the line, since there are a lot of other situations where you are required to wear a helmet. What about on a construction site, you have to wear a hard hat, could this guy sue the government and a construction company for forcing him to wear a hard hat. What about professional sports, could this guy sue the NHL because they require all players to wear helmets. If this guy wanted to be an astronaut, could he sue the Canadian Space Agency and NASA because astronauts have to wear their space helmets during take off. At what point does the guy have to decide that his religion is more important than doing things that require a helmet?

Collin

I understand both sides. Driving without a helmet is dangerous, or even stupid. But it only affects himself. And it is a matter of religious beliefs, not a fashion statement.

On the other hand, should the law be changed just because someone believes in something?

The sharia is part of Islam. Do you think Canada should have sharia courts for the muslims if they want them?

Or should religious drug use be legal?

Where do you draw the line?

I personally feel he should either just pay the tickets or stop riding a bike or if his bike is so important to him, change his religion.

But either way, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid no matter what your motivations might be.

jeffbr

Restless Soul wrote:

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.

Please explain to me how a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet increases the danger to others.

Restless Soul

jeffbr wrote:

Please explain to me how a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet increases the danger to others.

I was responding to your question: "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?"


I define "social costs" as in life - I guess you were thinking in monetary terms.

jeffbr

Restless Soul wrote:

I was responding to your question: "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?"


I define "social costs" as in life - I guess you were thinking in monetary terms.

I'm talking aboiut supporting the guy in a hospital on machines that flash and beep and why I have to pay to keep those machines flashing and beeping due to his bad choice. Again, completely support choice - in pretty much everything - but also support the notion of personal responsibility and owning the consequences of that choice rather than pushing those consequences onto others.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

I didnt think it was that big a deal, but lately im thinking legislation that restricts freedoms to reduce health care costs is dangerous.

TrixieCat

MrSmith wrote:

I didnt think it was that big a deal, but lately im thinking legislation that restricts freedoms to reduce health care costs is dangerous.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.
And if people are bringing obesity into this...an obese person is more likely to drive of healthcare costs than a gentleman riding around on his motorcycle without a helmet.
With heartattacks, stroke, high blood pressure medicine.
His religion dictates that he wear a turban. End of story. IMO.
Loving that the human rights orgs are behind him.

jeffbr

MrSmith wrote:

I didnt think it was that big a deal, but lately im thinking legislation that restricts freedoms to reduce health care costs is dangerous.

I'd like to turn that around. I think legistlation that requires me to pay more money to cover consequential health costs from other peoples' bad choices is dangerous.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

jeffbr wrote:

I'd like to turn that around. I think legistlation that requires me to pay more money to cover consequential health costs from other peoples' bad choices is dangerous.

then we are opposed, enemy! we will settle this at high noon witha duel.

jeffbr

MrSmith wrote:

then we are opposed, enemy! we will settle this at high noon witha duel.

Sweet!