Turbans & bike helmets...
Discussion
Pothole said:
streaky said:
And, like other religious headwear, you are not ordered to remove it on garage forecourts, and in banks and shops - Streaky
Generally, a Sikh's turban does not cover his face.pp
Pothole said:
I can't remember ever seeing a beturbaned Sikh on a bike. If I did, I'd give him a wave I reckon.
I've never seen one either.
No problem with it - it seems like a reasonable exemption, there's no possible 'advantage' to be gained for the rider and it serves the supreme purpose of almost certainly annoying Daily Mail readers.
What's not to like?
N Dentressangle said:
Pothole said:
I can't remember ever seeing a beturbaned Sikh on a bike. If I did, I'd give him a wave I reckon.
I've never seen one either.
No problem with it - it seems like a reasonable exemption, there's no possible 'advantage' to be gained for the rider and it serves the supreme purpose of almost certainly annoying Daily Mail readers.
What's not to like?
Saw some guy wearing a turban and aviator style shades riding a hornet along the M54 a few weeks ago. Thought it humourous more than anything, fair play to the guy!
Have seen a couple of guys in the RAF with turbans. Have a `smart` turban complete with badge for when wearing blues, and wears a dark, smaller `sheet` type turban when wearing greens with helmet, etc.
Have seen a couple of guys in the RAF with turbans. Have a `smart` turban complete with badge for when wearing blues, and wears a dark, smaller `sheet` type turban when wearing greens with helmet, etc.
Pothole said:
N Dentressangle said:
Pothole said:
I can't remember ever seeing a beturbaned Sikh on a bike. If I did, I'd give him a wave I reckon.
I've never seen one either.
No problem with it - it seems like a reasonable exemption, there's no possible 'advantage' to be gained for the rider and it serves the supreme purpose of almost certainly annoying Daily Mail readers.
What's not to like?
The other side of this debate is this.
I have crashed a motorcycle and live to tell this tale because I had a helmet on.
My head hit the ground HARD! So please don't tell me you want the privilege to ride without one???
I have no problem with this exemption to be honest, because the Sikhs I have met are some of the nicest people and who have made the effort to enrich British culture, so a little tolerance on our part is just being English.
But sadly if they crash, I doubt they would survive even a slowish head impact type crash without a proper helmet. Which is probably why so few ride large powerful bikes??
Nutty Pizza delivery youngsters of any description "tearing" around on mopeds, now that's another issue!
I like my Pizza hot you know!
I have crashed a motorcycle and live to tell this tale because I had a helmet on.
My head hit the ground HARD! So please don't tell me you want the privilege to ride without one???
I have no problem with this exemption to be honest, because the Sikhs I have met are some of the nicest people and who have made the effort to enrich British culture, so a little tolerance on our part is just being English.
But sadly if they crash, I doubt they would survive even a slowish head impact type crash without a proper helmet. Which is probably why so few ride large powerful bikes??
Nutty Pizza delivery youngsters of any description "tearing" around on mopeds, now that's another issue!
I like my Pizza hot you know!
Exactly what came to mind when i read the title.I recall some years back, a person of English caucasion heritage converting be the Sikh faith was still prosecuted for not wearing a British Standard helmet - even though he was wearing a Turban, and full traditional Sikh attire. The magistrate stated something like "you were born English CofE, so you don't qualify for the exemption"
There was quite a bit about it in various motorcylcing publications at the time.... ooooo it must have been nearly twenty years ago!
There was quite a bit about it in various motorcylcing publications at the time.... ooooo it must have been nearly twenty years ago!
N Dentressangle said:
... it serves the supreme purpose of almost certainly annoying Daily Mail readers.
And you want to annoy five million people? The DM's circulation is around two million. That equates to roughly 10% of the households in the UK. That translates to a potential five million, or more, readers.
Streaky [Who neither buys nor reads the Daily Mail newspaper]
thunderbelmont said:
I recall some years back, a person of English caucasion heritage converting be the Sikh faith was still prosecuted for not wearing a British Standard helmet - even though he was wearing a Turban, and full traditional Sikh attire. The magistrate stated something like "you were born English CofE, so you don't qualify for the exemption"
There was quite a bit about it in various motorcylcing publications at the time.... ooooo it must have been nearly twenty years ago!
caucasian. worthless without a proper citeThere was quite a bit about it in various motorcylcing publications at the time.... ooooo it must have been nearly twenty years ago!
thunderbelmont said:
I recall some years back, a person of English caucasion heritage converting be the Sikh faith was still prosecuted for not wearing a British Standard helmet - even though he was wearing a Turban, and full traditional Sikh attire. The magistrate stated something like "you were born English CofE, so you don't qualify for the exemption"
There was quite a bit about it in various motorcylcing publications at the time.... ooooo it must have been nearly twenty years ago!
IIRC it was a white biker chap who had got himself wound up about the exemption to the crash helmet laws and as a protest had decided to don a turban to make a point. The judge quite rightly saw it for what it was.There was quite a bit about it in various motorcylcing publications at the time.... ooooo it must have been nearly twenty years ago!
I now a lot of white bikers that get wound up about this issue. However, the protest rarely makes It out of the pub. It also appears to be a cause taken up by motorcycle magazines. If the exemption was a grave social injustice and was being exploited to give an unfair advantage to the the Sikh community then I would be the first in the queue to have it overturned. As others have stated, the number of Sikhs that utilise the exemption is minimal and probably declining.
Incidentally, I've met several white Sikhs who practice with a high degree of orthodoxy. Their level of knowledge on Sikh history, religion and culture was humbling. I don't recall any of them expressing a desire to ride a bike, however, should they change their minds I don't think they would have any trouble convincing a judge.
pp
It's hardly the end of the world, is it?
A very, very small number of (in my experience) inoffensive people have won an exemption which will place them (a very, very small number remember) at increased risk. If they were leaping up and down, beating things with a sandal while their wimminfolk made that irritating, ululating shrieking noise waving 'Death To The West' placards I might understand the anger but come on, really? Don't people have better things to do?
A very, very small number of (in my experience) inoffensive people have won an exemption which will place them (a very, very small number remember) at increased risk. If they were leaping up and down, beating things with a sandal while their wimminfolk made that irritating, ululating shrieking noise waving 'Death To The West' placards I might understand the anger but come on, really? Don't people have better things to do?
Pickled Piper said:
I'm always surprised that this one gets peoples backs up. It's not as if you see hoards of Sikhs riding motor bikes and using this exemption for pecuniary advantage. In fourty odd years I've only ever seen a handful of turbaned Sikhs riding motor bikes. In the case that the OP reported it sounds like the chap was just getting on and doing his job.
I have to declare my bias as a Sikh (a non turban wearing one). I recall the campaigning in the late sixties that lead to the change in the law. IIRC it was a group of Sikhs that worked night shift at Chatham docks and had no means of getting to work other than by moped.
The exemption to the law, in part, recognised the huge numbers of turbaned Sikhs that had frontline roles in the British forces prior to and during during both world wars. I'm happy to discuss the historical and legal basis with anyone that wants a sensible discussion.
This law is another example of the weak British government bending over backwards to pacify a minority group. We see it time and time again. How can a turban prevent you from receiving a serious head injury ? if it can, then lets all do away with our expensive lids and wear some linen. Exepmting sikhs with turbans is like saying lets exempt MSA competition licence holders from the speed limits, or fat people from wearing seat-belts because they are too fat to go through the windscreen (yes, ridiculous). Everyone should wear a helmet because it saves lives, lessens the mopping up from the overworked NHS and it is the law. As I previously wrote, I find this law VERY strange because in Sikh law/religious rules, there is NOTHING to say they HAVE to wear the turban all day long. This fact makes this law a mockery. I have to declare my bias as a Sikh (a non turban wearing one). I recall the campaigning in the late sixties that lead to the change in the law. IIRC it was a group of Sikhs that worked night shift at Chatham docks and had no means of getting to work other than by moped.
The exemption to the law, in part, recognised the huge numbers of turbaned Sikhs that had frontline roles in the British forces prior to and during during both world wars. I'm happy to discuss the historical and legal basis with anyone that wants a sensible discussion.
Edited by Rs2oo on Friday 20th August 17:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff