Turbans & bike helmets...

[Pothole]

Quinny said:

I wonder what would happen if we had a Sikh Moto GP rider??

Why? Is Moto GP subject to UK traffic laws?

[8400rpm]

Can't say I've ever seen a Sikh, complete with turban, riding a motorbike. Probably because they realise it's a silly idea. However if they want to, I don't have a problem with it, will just keep my fingers crossed they don't hurt themselves.

Seen plenty of people on motorbikes in the U.S. without any sort of head protection though. That is Darwin's theory in practice.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Pickled Piper said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

some sikhs are in the british army and wear a turban under a proper helmet

I've never seen this. Can you expand?
pp

I remember seeing an article about one such fella, when in a combat zone, he wore a close-fitting turban, which I've now learned is called a patka (like Monty Panesar)
this fitted under a standard army helmet

[_rubinho_]

Maybe, instead of arguing about a particular group's exemption from a particular safety law which would decrease their freedom if it were to be overturned why not campaign for an increase in the majority's freedom by the abolition of the helmet law?

Remember it's not mandatory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle in 3 states of the USA. You can also ride a moped without a helmet in the Netherlands (and ride them in cycle lanes/combined pavements and cycle lanes).

We should all be looking for more freedom not to restrict those who are lucky enough to have it. Jealousy is a very negative incentive.

Edited by _rubinho_ on Friday 20th August 17:55

[Pothole]

Quinny said:

Pothole said:

Quinny said:

I wonder what would happen if we had a Sikh Moto GP rider??

Why? Is Moto GP subject to UK traffic laws?

The thread is entitled "Turbans & bike helmets"

Who do you mean by 'we'?

I suspect that he would be told he had to wear a helmet which complies with the regulations of the sport.

[Pickled Piper]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Pickled Piper said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

some sikhs are in the british army and wear a turban under a proper helmet

I've never seen this. Can you expand?
pp

I remember seeing an article about one such fella, when in a combat zone, he wore a close-fitting turban, which I've now learned is called a patka (like Monty Panesar)
this fitted under a standard army helmet

Ah yes. Now I understand. A patka is essentially a large handkerchief that is tied around the top knot. They are traditionally worn for sporting events and physical activities where a turban would be too cumbersome. They used to be predominantly white although in recent years you mainly see them in black. The fashion of having the dangly bit at the back appears to have come from Monty Panesar.

pp

[Hugo a Gogo]

are you a sikh then piper?

I used to know a guy, ex RAF, I'd known him for ages before he told me he was a sikh

still, I must admit I was surprised recently when I met an asian bloke with short-ish cropped hair, then saw him later with a big turban on - is that common?

[Big_Dog]

I know a few Sikhs who just wear them for weddings. Generally grow a beard too. A turban looks pretty odd without one.

[Pickled Piper]

Hi Hugo,

Yes I am a Sikh by birth and it is the religion that I put on forms when asked. I don't wear a turban and the only way most people would identify me as Sikh is by my steel bracelet. The bracelet and the middle or last name Singh are the usual indicators.

An orthodox male Sikh would always have uncut hair and wear a turban. However, as Big Dog states it is very common for SIkhs with shorn hair to wear a turban and a full beard for formal occasions like wedding ceremonies. It is quite unusual for a Sikh with shorn hair to regularly don a turban, although I have witnessed it once or twice.

It's possible the chap you mention found god later in life and became orthodox. I've seen this several times, or perhaps he was just on his way to a wedding

pp

[Flintstone]

Maybe he was a fashion victim. That shade of orange is fantastic

[shauniebabes]

There are two problems with Sikhs and crash helmets.

1) Once you exempt people from the law because of what they CHOOSE to believe where do you stop ?

2) People who refused to wear a helmet for rational secular reasons have been sent to prison. People who did so for irrational religious reasons got the law changed to not to annoy the invisible sky pixie.

[shauniebabes]

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.

Here's a quote to frame the historical context. Winston articulates better than I can

Winston Churchill said:

..It is a matter of regret that due to the obsession of the present times people are distorting the superior religious and social values, but those who wish to preserve them with respect, we should appreciate them as well as help them. Sikhs do need our help for such a cause and we should give it happily. Those who know the Sikh history, know England's relationship with the Sikhs and are aware of the achievements of the Sikhs, they should persistently support the idea of relaxation to Sikhs to ride a motorbike with their turbans on, because it is their religious privilege."

Churchill, further added:

"...British people are highly indebted and obliged to for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans. At that time we were not adamant that they should wear safety helmets because we knew that they are not going to wear them anyways and we would be deprived of their help. At that time due to our miserable and poor situation, we did not force it on them to wear safety helmets, why should we force it now? Rather, we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

pp

How could Churchill talk about a law introduced in 1973 when he died in 1965 ?

The French were on our side in WW2 does that mean any one of French descent can ride a moped at 14 ?

[Countdown]

shauniebabes said:

There are two problems with Sikhs and crash helmets.

1) Once you exempt people from the law because of what they CHOOSE to believe where do you stop ?

2) People who refused to wear a helmet for rational secular reasons have been sent to prison. People who did so for irrational religious reasons got the law changed to not to annoy the invisible sky pixie.

(1) Are they "exempt from the law" or does the law "exempt them from wearing a helmet"? Srry to be pedantic but your statement implies that they are allowed to behave unlawfully?

(2) Why don't thos with rational secular reasons campaign for the law to be amended?

[Funk]

I do not agree with exempting people from UK laws on religious grounds. The law should either apply to all or none imo.

Believing in 'sky daddies' (thank you Tonker for that one!) shouldn't exempt anyone from anything.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Sent to prison for not wearing a helmet?

[shauniebabes]

Quinny said:

shauniebabes said:

How could Churchill talk about a law introduced in 1973 when he died in 1965 ?

There was another Winston Churchill

You wouldn't quote Thatcher to make a point without telling everyone if it was Mark

Was this the Winston Churchill who decided his granddad's papers weren't left to the nation after all and wanted several million quid for them ?

[shauniebabes]

Countdown said:

shauniebabes said:

There are two problems with Sikhs and crash helmets.

1) Once you exempt people from the law because of what they CHOOSE to believe where do you stop ?

2) People who refused to wear a helmet for rational secular reasons have been sent to prison. People who did so for irrational religious reasons got the law changed to not to annoy the invisible sky pixie.

(1) Are they "exempt from the law" or does the law "exempt them from wearing a helmet"? Srry to be pedantic but your statement implies that they are allowed to behave unlawfully?

(2) Why don't thos with rational secular reasons campaign for the law to be amended?

Because in a modern 21st century secular democracy being a loud mouthed religious nutter still trumps rational argument when it come to getting the authorities to do what you want

[shauniebabes]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Sent to prison for not wearing a helmet?

Google fred hill

[Countdown]

shauniebabes said:

Countdown said:

shauniebabes said:

There are two problems with Sikhs and crash helmets.

1) Once you exempt people from the law because of what they CHOOSE to believe where do you stop ?

2) People who refused to wear a helmet for rational secular reasons have been sent to prison. People who did so for irrational religious reasons got the law changed to not to annoy the invisible sky pixie.

(1) Are they "exempt from the law" or does the law "exempt them from wearing a helmet"? Srry to be pedantic but your statement implies that they are allowed to behave unlawfully?

(2) Why don't thos with rational secular reasons campaign for the law to be amended?

Because in a modern 21st century secular democracy being a loud mouthed religious nutter still trumps rational argument when it come to getting the authorities to do what you want

Why does this bother you so much? Suryb it's their lookout if they don't want to wear a helmet?

[TheEnd]

Countdown said:

shauniebabes said:

Countdown said:

shauniebabes said:

There are two problems with Sikhs and crash helmets.

1) Once you exempt people from the law because of what they CHOOSE to believe where do you stop ?

2) People who refused to wear a helmet for rational secular reasons have been sent to prison. People who did so for irrational religious reasons got the law changed to not to annoy the invisible sky pixie.

(1) Are they "exempt from the law" or does the law "exempt them from wearing a helmet"? Srry to be pedantic but your statement implies that they are allowed to behave unlawfully?

(2) Why don't thos with rational secular reasons campaign for the law to be amended?

Because in a modern 21st century secular democracy being a loud mouthed religious nutter still trumps rational argument when it come to getting the authorities to do what you want

Why does this bother you so much? Suryb it's their lookout if they don't want to wear a helmet?

Exactly, it's their lookout, and their head.
Moaning-by-proxy. It doesn't affect anybody else, and I doubt the complainers would want to ride around without a helmet on, so it's not as if anyone else is missing out.
I do however think those that don't want to wear a helmet should be allowed, as there isn't much to protect anyway.