Turbans & bike helmets...

[Engineer1]

This may be BS but I remember seeing a TV program where a proper Turban (i.e. one properly wrapped covering a lot of hair) was tested against a safety helmet and came out better as the fabric and hair absorbed the impact.

[VPower]

I have had a Google but can't find the exact wording of this law.
Perhaps someone can confirm my understanding?

This is not the only law that exempts certain people from complying.

Usually the wording states an acceptable "Defence" if prosecuted under the said law.

So a very SMALL section of a small section of our community can use this particular defence.

If my interpretation is correct (?) in this instance, it is not unusual and there are many other such examples in British Law.

I personally feel that people who wish to be Organ Donors should also be allowed to use that as a defence if stopped not wearing a helmet!

[Pothole]

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 ?IT LOOKS AS THOUGH WE STOPPED RIGHT THERE, DOESN'T IT?

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. FRED HILL'S CAMPAIGN WAS IRRATIONAL

[ExChrispy Porker]

shauniebabes said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Sent to prison for not wearing a helmet?

Google fred hill

I did. He was sent to prison for contempt of court. Which is rather different.

[RemaL]

I have enjoyed reading others views on this. Being a bike I ould never ride without a lid. have been to florida many times and if I was to ride over there ( I have been tempted to hire a bike while on my hols) I would still wear a lid.

If a Sikh can get away wihtout a lid then thats fine by me. their choice.
Much in the same way as Bikers only have to wear a helmet, and can get away by law with flip flops, t-shirt and shorts. I think thats madness. And has resulted in more money being spent by the NHS to sort bikers wearing little protection who have crashed even at slow speeds.

But again if thats the law and they wish to do this then I don't care. it's their lives and not mine. I'll keep with the leathers, lid gloves etc..

[shauniebabes]

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?

The helmet issue is not the issue. The issue is groups insisting the law shouldn't apply to then because of what they CHOOSE to believe, however irrational. If someone set up a religion that involved ritualistic sacrifice of a small child should the homocide act be ammended to let them do it ?

It starts off with Sihks being allowed not to wear helmets, moves onto Muslims already being able to ignore animal cruelty laws, and no doubt in a few years time honour killing will be considered simply a cultural matter

[shauniebabes]

ExChrispy Porker said:

shauniebabes said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Sent to prison for not wearing a helmet?

Google fred hill

I did. He was sent to prison for contempt of court. Which is rather different.

What would be the chances of a Sikh being sent to prison for refusing to pay a fine for a law that Allah/Zeus/Thor/The Sun God didn't agree with. I would imagine a lot less that someone who did it for the secular concept of individual liberty

[vonhosen]

shauniebabes said:

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?

The helmet issue is not the issue. The issue is groups insisting the law shouldn't apply to then because of what they CHOOSE to believe, however irrational. If someone set up a religion that involved ritualistic sacrifice of a small child should the homocide act be ammended to let them do it ?

It starts off with Sihks being allowed not to wear helmets, moves onto Muslims already being able to ignore animal cruelty laws, and no doubt in a few years time honour killing will be considered simply a cultural matter

You genuinely believe that's where it will end up & believe that belief is rational ?

[Pothole]

vonhosen said:

shauniebabes said:

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?

The helmet issue is not the issue. The issue is groups insisting the law shouldn't apply to then because of what they CHOOSE to believe, however irrational. If someone set up a religion that involved ritualistic sacrifice of a small child should the homocide act be ammended to let them do it ?

It starts off with Sihks being allowed not to wear helmets, moves onto Muslims already being able to ignore animal cruelty laws, and no doubt in a few years time honour killing will be considered simply a cultural matter

You genuinely believe that's where it will end up & believe that belief is rational ?

I don't often agree with you, Von, but in this case I think he really does believe that and that, frankly, that belief is as ridiculous as any of the religious beliefs he is prepared to run rough shod over.