Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Crash helmet legislation

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Is Sikhs being exempt from wearing crash helmets on motorbikes, the same issue as Catholic adoption agencies not wanting to place kids with a gay couple?

I say similar, but not the same. Not wearing a crash helmet is only really affecting the person not wearing it. However, as a matter of principle, I don't think Sikhs should be above the law.

It is Sikhs isn't it?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No comment then?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Indeed, they shouldn't be above the law. Infact, we could say helmets should be personal choice. It certainly must be a fun experience riding wearing no helmet... wind in face. I would slip on some sunglasses and blast off.

    However, I would say we should all wear helmets. Surley it doesn't matter that much to religious beliefs? It isn't like anyone can SEE you aren't wearing your headdress? Also, it affects your relatives and friends greatley if you die - not just yourself, being dead - but they are physcologically harmed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The law should prevail.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't it possible to get helmets with the Sikg headress on? I'm sure that's why I got told a few years ago when studying GCSE RE.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So if my culture thinks its OK to discriminate against black people, that's OK?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    So if my culture thinks its OK to discriminate against black people, that's OK?

    Does it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote: »
    Isn't it possible to get helmets with the Sikg headress on? I'm sure that's why I got told a few years ago when studying GCSE RE.

    A helmet with a turban on? Well I suppose you could wrap your turban round the helmet, but it kind of defeats the point. I'm sure a turban is just to keep your hair together, as to Sikh's their hair is precious. The turban itself is to keep the hair clean and not straggly everywhere, because they don't tend to have it cut.

    I don't think anyone should be compelled to wear a helmet, but imagine how difficult it would be for Sikhs to ride a motorbike without a turban? What would they do with all that hair? Their hair (Kesh, I believe it's called) is sacred and part of their religious identity, so asking them to get it mucky by removing their turban isn't something they could really do. And it's not fair to discriminate them by saying they can't ride motorcycles because of their religious needs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    A helmet with a turban on? Well I suppose you could wrap your turban round the helmet, but it kind of defeats the point.

    I think that was in Only Fools & Horses...

    Can't say that I've ever seen somebody riding a motorcycle without a helmet wearing a turban. I support the exemption anyway, although, I think it is pretty dangerous to not wear a helmet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Further to gerbil's comment I would also say that not wearing a helmet affects people you may be involved in an accident with.

    If you crash and die as a result of not having a helmet on then the psychological effects on those invloved in the accident are likely to be far worse.

    I wouldn't say that there should never be any exceptions but they would have to be for very important reasons.

    i am particularly hostile to exceptions on religious grounds because they are motivated by irratrional superstition, not anything logical...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    Further to gerbil's comment I would also say that not wearing a helmet affects people you may be involved in an accident with.

    If you crash and die as a result of not having a helmet on then the psychological effects on those invloved in the accident are likely to be far worse.

    Why? Evidence? If anything, I'd guess that the psychological effects for others involved in an accident might be eased by them thinking that the rider not wearing a helmet is irresponsible for putting themselves in danger.
    Toadborg wrote: »
    i am particularly hostile to exceptions on religious grounds because they are motivated by irratrional superstition, not anything logical...

    Wearing the turban is very important to many Sikhs. I think most decent people will find it pretty logical to respect religious beliefs and where possible, accommodate those beliefs. There are some religious beliefs that cannot be accommodated in a modern society, the attitude towards women of some Muslims for example. Or some Christian ideas on changing gay people's sexuality. But, allowing the small number of Sikhs that wear turbans to ride a motorcycle without having to compromise their faith seems a pretty reasonable thing to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does it?

    Yep, that's right I'm a fully paid up member of the KKK. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote: »
    Wow, that was a rather enormous leap to make from what I said.

    Not really, no. I'm just exploring the limits of what you propose.
    sophia wrote: »
    Firstly, I'd like to hear your answer to Flashman's question...does your culture think it's ok?

    Don't be daft.
    sophia wrote: »
    If not, do you know any which do?

    Southern states of the US until fairly recently.
    sophia wrote: »
    Secondly, you'll note from my post I said
    Lots of. Not all. I think minority groups (and indeed, all individuals) have a right to religious conscience and freedom of expression which ought to be upheld and protected, even if that involves making special allowances for their particular needs, for example, allowing Jewish police officers to not work on the Sabbath.

    OK. So on what criteria do you grant rights to some groups and not others?
    sophia wrote: »
    However, nobody has the right to discriminate agianst other people on the basis of their skin colour, and thus there is no requirement for the state to protect this "right".

    Why don't they have that right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should religious beliefs hold more weight that personal ones? I don't think so. If I were to expound that the wearing of a helmet would hinder the regular expulsion of evil spirits from my head, then should I be granted exemption from wearing a helmet? How about if I got a group of people to subscribe to that theory? What if I declared that I'd paid £80 for a haircut, it'd taken me an hour to style my hair this morning, and that wearing a helmet would mess all that up?

    For me it's the same with the Catholic Church issue. If you exempt one group from a law then you set a dangerous precedent. If you exempt one group, then deny another, you're saying that one person's opinions/beliefs are more important (or valid) than another.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Why don't they have that right?

    It's fairly logical and simple to conclude that not all people can enjoy all rights without them interfering. Someone's right to not be persecuted is more important than someone's right to persecute / be prejudiced.

    When it's someone's right to protect their hair, a sacred part of their religious identity, vs. the governments right to protect people from their own ignorance (by not wearing a helmet), I think it's up to the people. I don't think helmets should be compulsory, either. Very sensible, not not an offense if you choose not to wear one.

    But the law is probably more designed to give police powers to stop youngsters on bikes without helmets, because they can't afford a helmet. Whereas most older riders are fairly sensible with their kit. They know the risks but are prepared to take them. If there was no law for helmets, imagine the amount of kids on scooters running about, then ending up on an operating table.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    But the law is probably more designed to give police powers to stop youngsters on bikes without helmets, because they can't afford a helmet. Whereas most older riders are fairly sensible with their kit. They know the risks but are prepared to take them. If there was no law for helmets, imagine the amount of kids on scooters running about, then ending up on an operating table.

    Eh?? :confused: What about the law on seatbelts? Airbags?
    The issue is safety, not giving police more powers. If a youngster is on a bike, they have powers to stop them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, giving the police to stop someone on a bike because they're not wearing a helmet. It's not sensible to go without one, but a law against it? I think it's the same with seatbelts, it's not sensible not to wear one, but making it an offense? But I think it allows us to enforce safety onto those who should be protected but are too ignorant to do it themselves.

    If people are fully aware of the risks, but decide in fact not to wear a helmet, that's a different matter, and I support their right to not wear protection. But say it's a child, there should be legislation that every child must wear a helmet, or every child on a school bus must wear a seatbelt, because they are not fully aware of the risk of an accident.

    For that matter, maybe none of us are, we never consider that we might die today and it's a bit of plastic and foam that's going to keep us alive. A lot of people wear seatbelts because it's the law, the same as a lot of people wear helmets because it's the law. It will save their life either way, so that's a good thing. But if people don't want to be protected, should they be forced to? :chin:

    Whole different debate, sorry for the rant...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^Wot he said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It's fairly logical and simple to conclude that not all people can enjoy all rights without them interfering. Someone's right to not be persecuted is more important than someone's right to persecute / be prejudiced.

    Why?

    I know why I think it is, I'm wondering what others think
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    No comment then?

    Eventalluy ;)

    This is another case where the law should not be in place. It's Nanny state law - if I want to take a risk then that's up to me and that state can fuck off.

    However, as such a law is in place then there should be an exclusion such as this because religious sensibilities should be taken into account. In this instance no-one else is directly affected and so personal choice can be applied. What worries me is that choice is only actually allowed for one religion and not for us all = the law in fact discriminates in favour of one...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Eventalluy ;)

    This is another case where the law should not be in place. It's Nanny state law - if I want to take a risk then that's up to me and that state can fuck off.

    Agreed.
    However, as such a law is in place then there should be an exclusion such as this because religious sensibilities should be taken into account. In this instance no-one else is directly affected and so personal choice can be applied.

    Yeah, maybe. I don't really care tbh, I was being argumentative for the hell of it. Its not the same as the adoption thing though, for those very reasons...
    What worries me is that choice is only actually allowed for one religion and not for us all = the law in fact discriminates in favour of one...

    Yeah.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Yeah, maybe. I don't really care tbh, I was being argumentative for the hell of it. Its not the same as the adoption thing though, for those very reasons...

    Sorry the direct comparison was about exclusions from law based on religion.

    In the instance of adoption it's preventing religious belief from being expressed (not just Catholics but Anglicans and Muslims too) and the exclusion would allow such beliefs to be honoured, in this law it allows and exclusion for one religion and so repcendence is set.

    The issue about impact on others is an interesting one but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that the state should legslate against religious beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would quite like to be able to ride with no helmet, especially when I've done my hair in certain styles.

    But in my opinion, anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a twat. Turban or no turban.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree, it's stupid. But why shouldn't the individual be allowed to decide if they want to take that risk?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree, it's stupid. But why shouldn't the individual be allowed to decide if they want to take that risk?

    It isn't just the individual who is affected, it's also the people who have to clear up the mess.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You think that they don't clean this sort of thing up already?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You think that they don't clean this sort of thing up already?

    Not really following you...
    there's a far higher risk of brain injury and death and bits of brain across the road without a helmet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PussyKatty wrote: »
    It isn't just the individual who is affected, it's also the people who have to clear up the mess.

    So we should ban motorcycles, obviously. Everyone should be forced to travel around in an armoured truck...
Sign In or Register to comment.