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.
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.
I don't buy the "public health" argument. I can see "public health" for things like vaccines where one person's choices can significantly affect others, but how does someone dying by making a stupid decision impact the public?
If there really is a cost to it (e.g. the government needs to clean up dead people), then make it opt-out with a fee when you get your license. When you get pulled over for an infraction, you can get an additional fine if you aren't wearing a helmet and haven't paid the fee, where to fine is much larger than the fee.
The government shouldn't protect people from themselves (though it can certainly nudge them through opt-out strategies), it just needs to protect people from each other. That's why we have people locked up for marijuana possession and other victimless crimes.
Religion shouldn't be relevant at all to this. If you choose to opt out of something for any reason, you're reasonable for taking measures to get you same result.
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.
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.
I think you may be confusing Western society with the US. It's not a tenet, fundamental or otherwise, of many Western societies
It's a fairly common element of Western societies, though the particular expression varies; ranging from broad tolerance despite a formally established religion through a firm secularism in the public square; the US, though it professes a reasonably strong though not extreme form that amounts to neutrality actually has fairly weak separation between privileged religious communities and government power in practice.
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.
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”.
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.
When you see a "trade-off", a lot of people see a "loophole". The tax system is exactly that, full of "trade-offs" created for some easy political gains.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
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.
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...
My quick googling (eg 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.
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.
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.
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?
Why must we follow something all the way to its logical conclusion? We can choose where to draw the line. Requiring helmets is a reasonable compromise.
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.
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.
As i write this comment I have my grandpas turban in one hand, and my motorcycle helmet in the other. I like to believe that I was raised to be reasonable when it comes to religious application. I’ll take the full-face everytime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
"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.
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.
If helmets are in fact necessary, they should not be exempt. If they are not necessary, everyone should be exempt.
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.
I don't buy the "public health" argument. I can see "public health" for things like vaccines where one person's choices can significantly affect others, but how does someone dying by making a stupid decision impact the public?
If there really is a cost to it (e.g. the government needs to clean up dead people), then make it opt-out with a fee when you get your license. When you get pulled over for an infraction, you can get an additional fine if you aren't wearing a helmet and haven't paid the fee, where to fine is much larger than the fee.
The government shouldn't protect people from themselves (though it can certainly nudge them through opt-out strategies), it just needs to protect people from each other. That's why we have people locked up for marijuana possession and other victimless crimes.
Religion shouldn't be relevant at all to this. If you choose to opt out of something for any reason, you're reasonable for taking measures to get you same result.
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.
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.
It's a fairly common element of Western societies, though the particular expression varies; ranging from broad tolerance despite a formally established religion through a firm secularism in the public square; the US, though it professes a reasonably strong though not extreme form that amounts to neutrality actually has fairly weak separation between privileged religious communities and government power in practice.
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.
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”.
~4 people over the past 200+ years is not a meaningful demonstration of any tolerance towards non-religious folks holding public office.
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.
Ontario funds a Catholic school board with public money. Separation of church and state is not at all universal.
There is this thing called "a trade-off".
When you see a "trade-off", a lot of people see a "loophole". The tax system is exactly that, full of "trade-offs" created for some easy political gains.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
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.
There is nothing democratic about unequal application of the law.
Nor is there anything undemocratic, is there?
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.
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...
My quick googling (eg 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.
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.
I mean their huge hair is probably good enough as a helmet
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.
You _may not be_ ensuring. The data for cyclists may very well not extrapolate to motorcyclists.
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?
Why must we follow something all the way to its logical conclusion? We can choose where to draw the line. Requiring helmets is a reasonable compromise.
Eliminating all risk is unrealistic.
That is great news for Ontarios organ donor program
Is there a religious contravention against donating organs?
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.
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.
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.
As i write this comment I have my grandpas turban in one hand, and my motorcycle helmet in the other. I like to believe that I was raised to be reasonable when it comes to religious application. I’ll take the full-face everytime.
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.
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.
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.
Do you have to prove that you are a Sikh in order to avoid being charged, if you are given a ticket?
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.
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.
Could a special helmet be designed for Sikhs?
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.
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.
Inflatable liner might do the trick. They would look like Gazoo though.