Tough Turban: an open-source design for turban-wearing motorcyclists(toughturban.com)
toughturban.com
Tough Turban: an open-source design for turban-wearing motorcyclists
https://toughturban.com/
102 comments
It’s not correct to say that our DOT standards are out of date. In fact there is some debate about the Snell standard vs the DOT standard. The area is around the helmet impact rating. A higher rated impact helmet is generally more rigid and will potentially cause brain injury at lower speeds. Essentially for helmets you trade-off high speed impact survivability vs low speed injury protection. The claim of many riders, myself included is that crashes happen at lower speeds and thus a less rigid helmet is likely more optimal. Having said that there have been significant advances in helmet design in last few years that address low speed impact as well as meet the Snell standard. They do this by reducing the transfer of rotational energy on the user.
See for example (6D helmet manufacturer): https://youtu.be/B6jI0w5UFLs
Having said all that a helmet without a chinstrap, such as this one, is basically like not wearing a helmet at all. In a crash, the helmet isn’t going to stay on. If the helmet doesn’t stay on, it’s not going to do anything.
See for example (6D helmet manufacturer): https://youtu.be/B6jI0w5UFLs
Having said all that a helmet without a chinstrap, such as this one, is basically like not wearing a helmet at all. In a crash, the helmet isn’t going to stay on. If the helmet doesn’t stay on, it’s not going to do anything.
> For context: Sikh bikers in Canada have protested laws mandating helmets be worn while riding.
Why is there a need for a law? Someone should be free to ride without a helmet, whatever his religion, as long as he can find an insurer willing to provide adequate coverage (or be able to self-insure) for his medical bills.
Why is there a need for a law? Someone should be free to ride without a helmet, whatever his religion, as long as he can find an insurer willing to provide adequate coverage (or be able to self-insure) for his medical bills.
In Canada that would be the state, which might explain the state using available tools to discourage this behaviour?
Why does the first mandate the second? A private insurer doesn't compel me to do <X>, it just invalidates cover if I don't.
I'm not fined for being fat, or even given the bill for my own (hypothetical) coronary, despite the enormous liability that gives the state. As long as that's true, I'd say motorcyclists can reasonably doubt that protecting the state is the real purpose.
I'm not fined for being fat, or even given the bill for my own (hypothetical) coronary, despite the enormous liability that gives the state. As long as that's true, I'd say motorcyclists can reasonably doubt that protecting the state is the real purpose.
The other people who pays taxes would be providing money for medical bills... That's the problem.
Not all societies believe that individual freedoms cannot be preempted by things that help the society as a whole or protect the individual from dangers.
In Canada, for example, healthcare is a shared burden across all people. Which alone is a strong argument in favour of safety enhancing policies.
There is also good argument for the role of government to help take care of its citizens. The danger of not wearing a helmet is so great that the government steps in to enforce people to do it. It doesn't matter how well the person says they are prepared for the risks or has "done research", the data are clear that they are objectively wrong to not wear one. Sure, people can say they are smart and ready, but time and time again we see that people make choices against their best interests. So, the government steps in.
In Canada, for example, healthcare is a shared burden across all people. Which alone is a strong argument in favour of safety enhancing policies.
There is also good argument for the role of government to help take care of its citizens. The danger of not wearing a helmet is so great that the government steps in to enforce people to do it. It doesn't matter how well the person says they are prepared for the risks or has "done research", the data are clear that they are objectively wrong to not wear one. Sure, people can say they are smart and ready, but time and time again we see that people make choices against their best interests. So, the government steps in.
>Why is there a need for a law?
Because we live in a society? Because suiciding yourself on public roads should be illegal?
Because we live in a society? Because suiciding yourself on public roads should be illegal?
If we believe that healthcare is a basic human right and that the state should therefore provide it to everyone equally and free of charge, then as a matter of practicality (money is finite), we must put some restrictions on the ways people can put themselves in danger. The more people get hurt in preventable accidents, the less money there is to treat everyone else, even if their problems weren't preventable. Doing something reckless is therefore harmful to others by definition.
On the other hand, if we believe that people should be allowed to hurt themselves if they can find someone to cover their medical bills, then the question becomes where do we draw the line? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet seems like a reasonable one. What about with a helmet? Motorcycles are inherently dangerous. But all road traffic is more dangerous than trains. Should people need a personal health insurance add-on to drive a car? What about eating unhealthy food?
Even if the line is drawn clearly, now only the rich can afford to do certain dangerous things and everyone else can't. Due to money shifting into the private sector, less and less will be covered by state insurance, making things that are allowed even today (like many sports) to be off-limits to anyone middle-class and lower. Now we've turned a situation where everyone has reasonable but equal limits to one where the rich have no limits and everyone else has unreasonably strict limits.
On the other hand, if we believe that people should be allowed to hurt themselves if they can find someone to cover their medical bills, then the question becomes where do we draw the line? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet seems like a reasonable one. What about with a helmet? Motorcycles are inherently dangerous. But all road traffic is more dangerous than trains. Should people need a personal health insurance add-on to drive a car? What about eating unhealthy food?
Even if the line is drawn clearly, now only the rich can afford to do certain dangerous things and everyone else can't. Due to money shifting into the private sector, less and less will be covered by state insurance, making things that are allowed even today (like many sports) to be off-limits to anyone middle-class and lower. Now we've turned a situation where everyone has reasonable but equal limits to one where the rich have no limits and everyone else has unreasonably strict limits.
I believe there is a difference in legal responsibility when you are involved in an accident where there is a fatality involved. Also tax money is involved in the care of the injured regardless.
These laws exist to protect idiots from themselves and to protect others, like the pillion.
>I really, really hope this isn't a Sikh-specific rehash of the "party hat" phenomenon in the USA.
Guessing not. At least in Alberta, Sikhs have explicit exemptions from requiring helmets while operating a motorcycle[1]. I think BC and Manitoba do as well but I haven't checked their specific regulations.
[1]https://www.alberta.ca/helmet-exemption-sikh.aspx
Guessing not. At least in Alberta, Sikhs have explicit exemptions from requiring helmets while operating a motorcycle[1]. I think BC and Manitoba do as well but I haven't checked their specific regulations.
[1]https://www.alberta.ca/helmet-exemption-sikh.aspx
I'm really surprised that this would still be an issue in any Western countries with a Sikh population of any significance. This is hardly a new topic, as this UK news report from almost half a century ago about the 1973 "Wearing of helmets" regulation shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVe_Gzqgi8
It took less than 3 years for an exemption to be put in place, and it came during a period of history that wasn't exactly friendly to immigrants and their descendants.
It took less than 3 years for an exemption to be put in place, and it came during a period of history that wasn't exactly friendly to immigrants and their descendants.
[deleted]
http://web.archive.org/web/20210621173229/https://www.tought...
Probably better than no helmet, though my concern would be that this provides no real protection from abrasion for the face.
Motorcycle protective gear needs to protect from impacts yes, but abrasion is also a significant risk - slides from speeds over 100kph can be quite substantial in both time and distance - upwards of 5 seconds, and dozens of metres, pushing higher in different conditions.
This video of a slide in the wet made the rounds a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0
Probably better than no helmet, though my concern would be that this provides no real protection from abrasion for the face.
Motorcycle protective gear needs to protect from impacts yes, but abrasion is also a significant risk - slides from speeds over 100kph can be quite substantial in both time and distance - upwards of 5 seconds, and dozens of metres, pushing higher in different conditions.
This video of a slide in the wet made the rounds a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0
Open faced helmets in general are a terrible idea. Close to half of motorcycle accidents will hit the part of the helmet that covers the sides of your chin. A scooter helmet or a brain bucket might keep you alive, but it won't protect the parts of your face you chew food and smell things with.
That extends to the rest of your body. Protective gear is the difference between a bruise and a scar.
Remember falling off your bike as a kid? At over 50 km/h with a 200 kg bike, you'll turn into a meat crayon.
As they say, dress for the slide, not the ride. Mine saved my life, and prevented a few scars.
That extends to the rest of your body. Protective gear is the difference between a bruise and a scar.
Remember falling off your bike as a kid? At over 50 km/h with a 200 kg bike, you'll turn into a meat crayon.
As they say, dress for the slide, not the ride. Mine saved my life, and prevented a few scars.
"Inspired by the recent helmet law exemption for Sikh motorcyclists..."
So I guess it's trying to be better than nothing rather than a full solution to head protection. Unless you want a chinstrap on a turban. Bit like stronger thongs/flipflops maybe.
So I guess it's trying to be better than nothing rather than a full solution to head protection. Unless you want a chinstrap on a turban. Bit like stronger thongs/flipflops maybe.
This product is absolutely sending the wrong message.
I've been riding motorcycles for a decade. My father was a motorcycle defensive driving instructor and somebody ran a red light and nailed him. My oldest brother was a semi-pro motorcycle racer and still died in a crash.
The only sane option when riding a motorcycle is a full face helmet and proper protective gear. Insisting on wearing religious garb while riding means you should not be riding.
I've been riding motorcycles for a decade. My father was a motorcycle defensive driving instructor and somebody ran a red light and nailed him. My oldest brother was a semi-pro motorcycle racer and still died in a crash.
The only sane option when riding a motorcycle is a full face helmet and proper protective gear. Insisting on wearing religious garb while riding means you should not be riding.
Can it pass the usual Snell helmet tests? [1]
[1] https://smf.org/testing
[1] https://smf.org/testing
Does Snell approve any open-face helmets?
What I'm not seeing is any safety testing at all that was done on this design. Which seems a big oversight.
For a safety product, that's not oversight, that's nigh criminal negligence.
The snark on this from ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) crowd is a bit much. I could imagine it would be frustrating for the concerned to be taking most of the risk that someone looking badass takes, but getting none of the reflected glory. Riders ride for the pleasure of it, judging others for how they enjoy it is a bit much.
This idea we get to be judgy and have anxieties about others taking risks, as though we have some responsibility for them is just wishful thinking. It makes the critic feel they are retaining some power in the face of a risk taker's badassery. Every time I read resentment of someone else taking risks, it's by someone who aspires to do the same thing and doesn't because their risk appetite isn't the same.
Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. The reason people hate on Harley riders is because they feel ashamed. We all die, but please, try to lay off those of us who choose to live a little before we do.
This idea we get to be judgy and have anxieties about others taking risks, as though we have some responsibility for them is just wishful thinking. It makes the critic feel they are retaining some power in the face of a risk taker's badassery. Every time I read resentment of someone else taking risks, it's by someone who aspires to do the same thing and doesn't because their risk appetite isn't the same.
Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. The reason people hate on Harley riders is because they feel ashamed. We all die, but please, try to lay off those of us who choose to live a little before we do.
> Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance.
Riding a purposefully noisy vehicle is not what risk taking looks like, it's more like a "Look at me! I exist!" cry for validation, and that's not powerful or sexy.
Riding a purposefully noisy vehicle is not what risk taking looks like, it's more like a "Look at me! I exist!" cry for validation, and that's not powerful or sexy.
Going into slightly darker places though, from A purely utilitarian point of view, I wonder how the math works out on cost benefit ratio here. Motorcyclists, especially non-helmet wearing ones, are a major source of viable organ donations. The increased organ supply, is an odd and morbid, if beneficial, externality of helmet law repeals[0].
The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags).
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256
The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags).
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256
People hate on Harley riders because they are more into making a lot of noise than getting from A to B. The only risk most of them take is the risk of looking like a middle aged dentist compensating for something
Out of curiosity, is there no way to wear a helmet over a turban? I've had Sikh friends who wear warm winter hats over their head coverings, for instance. No disrespect to Sikhs reading this, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm guessing it has more to do with comfort and appearances (they do look badass). I never really understood laws that force adults to wear helmets, if someone want's to take the risk then thats their decision.
Do you want emergency services rendered to people who get into an accident?
I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but I think that anyone who gets into an accident deserves attention from emergency services. To suggest otherwise would be rather vengeful.
I’m not the parent commenter, but I believe they’re making the case that there are negative externalities that come from not wearing protective equipment which are borne by others in some form or another. In Canada, for example, there is a very direct cost to others because of their universal healthcare.
Thanks, I had a feeling that is what they were talking about but wasn't positive. That seems like a selfish stance to have, and also ironic considering the ideologies behind universal healthcare.
How much money even gets spent on medical bills for bikers who choose not to wear helmets? If everyones personal lifestyle choices now have a monetary impact on each other, then how much intervention does this justify? Should people be forced to eat healthy and exercise? Obesity cost the healthcare system significantly more than motorcycle injuries. Alcohol, candy, cigarettes, even OTC drugs have a huge cost on the healthcare system, should those be illegal? What about mental health? Should people be prevented from doing anything considered "health threatening" out of the fear they may cost tax payers money?
Also should people be allowed to opt-out of a universal healthcare system and be exempt from lifestyle regulations?
How much money even gets spent on medical bills for bikers who choose not to wear helmets? If everyones personal lifestyle choices now have a monetary impact on each other, then how much intervention does this justify? Should people be forced to eat healthy and exercise? Obesity cost the healthcare system significantly more than motorcycle injuries. Alcohol, candy, cigarettes, even OTC drugs have a huge cost on the healthcare system, should those be illegal? What about mental health? Should people be prevented from doing anything considered "health threatening" out of the fear they may cost tax payers money?
Also should people be allowed to opt-out of a universal healthcare system and be exempt from lifestyle regulations?
Its not all about healthcare costs. Consider the mental impact of being involved in an accident where the other person was killed.
What is selfish about regulating some things that otherwise put a burden on society and have almost no upside for the individual if not regulated? Even if they and their families pay the highest cost for their stupidity, this doesn't mean there is no case for regulation.
You don't even know if they have families/dependents, and people should be allowed to make their own choices regardless. If you are concerned about the burden of taking care of others then you should criticize universal healthcare rather than try to dictate peoples lives. Don't bring those liabilities into your life if you are unwilling to deal with them.
It's a complicated and interesting debate. In places where we have universal healthcare we want to simultaneously provide coverage for everyone and allow the maximum freedom possible, but these goals are somewhat conflicting. We still think universal healthcare is of paramount importance for the well being of the group, so it takes the priority. This means reckless behavior can be frowned upon, smoking discouraged and seat belts enforced.
From my european pov I've always felt universal healthcare would never work in the US due to this focus on individual freedom over almost anything else.
From my european pov I've always felt universal healthcare would never work in the US due to this focus on individual freedom over almost anything else.
No. A helmet is very tight, and it has to be. It has to stay on if you take a spill.
While all the posts before mine were decrying the usefulness of this design I want to make a different point.
This shows what can be done when you really do think outside the box and stop letting convention dictate what can be accomplished. This concept makes my heart swell at how awesome inclusion can be.
This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion.
I ride. I curse at the organ donors who wear skull-caps, or the teens wearing shorts & t-shirts; and hope I am wrong and they stay lucky. But I support this.
Things can only get better from here. This is an improvement. This is embracing what's different and trying to make a difference.
This shows what can be done when you really do think outside the box and stop letting convention dictate what can be accomplished. This concept makes my heart swell at how awesome inclusion can be.
This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion.
I ride. I curse at the organ donors who wear skull-caps, or the teens wearing shorts & t-shirts; and hope I am wrong and they stay lucky. But I support this.
Things can only get better from here. This is an improvement. This is embracing what's different and trying to make a difference.
> It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion.
Exactly. This is no different to kevlar jeans - they're nowhere near as good as racing leathers, but they're a damn sight better than regular pants while still being something you can wear all day.
Exactly. This is no different to kevlar jeans - they're nowhere near as good as racing leathers, but they're a damn sight better than regular pants while still being something you can wear all day.
> This isn't about Snell, this isn't about being AS GOOD AS a full-face helmet. It's about being better then a cotton(?) fabric turban. It's about respecting a persons choice of religion.
My understanding was that the religious obligation for Sikhs was to keep their hair covered. Does this necessarily require a cloth turban? This seems like a case where Sikhs could take a page out of Orthodox Jews' book and do some creative interpretation of what defines a turban, rather than try to turn a turban into an inferior helmet.
My understanding was that the religious obligation for Sikhs was to keep their hair covered. Does this necessarily require a cloth turban? This seems like a case where Sikhs could take a page out of Orthodox Jews' book and do some creative interpretation of what defines a turban, rather than try to turn a turban into an inferior helmet.
[deleted]
I am happy to support this as well, though I would hope that the criticism would be taken as constructive and used to improve the design so that it can be both inclusive and safer than this initial concept.
No chin strap? First major accident, your head goes one way and the helmet goes another. If you're morbid, a little searching will produce plenty of examples caught on video.
Pretty sure Sikhs have been keeping turbans on their heads for hundreds of years - a turban is different from a hat
Your comment in no way addresses OP's point. Centuries of tradition are nothing against a new milliseconds of Newtonian mechanics, sorry.
Why couldn't a turban have a chin strap?
Why couldn't a turban have a chin strap?
Sikh turbans are wrapped into their long, uncut hair. It's not going anywhere.
I've seen plenty of brawls involving Sikh men wearing turbans. The turbans invariably come off even without direct impact.
Also there are non-Kesdhari Sikhs (those who've never kept long hair) and those who've had their hair cut (called Patit ("fallen") by hardliners) but still wear a turban to signal religious and communal affiliation. You might be surprised at how many Sikhs have had their hair cut but go back to wearing turbans again.
Also there are non-Kesdhari Sikhs (those who've never kept long hair) and those who've had their hair cut (called Patit ("fallen") by hardliners) but still wear a turban to signal religious and communal affiliation. You might be surprised at how many Sikhs have had their hair cut but go back to wearing turbans again.
I don't know what google now thinks of me for searching "sikh brawl", but here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md3hNJYtDHg
I count at least one turban-ectomy, with nowhere near the forces of a motorcycle crash. I think we can call that myth "busted".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md3hNJYtDHg
I count at least one turban-ectomy, with nowhere near the forces of a motorcycle crash. I think we can call that myth "busted".
When it hits the ground going 50mph its not staying on. Period.
Do you have any data behind that?
yes, common sense. people are known to get decapitated on impact. limbs flying everywhere because of the accelerations involved. traditional helmets get ground on asphalt enough to develop actual holes. what makes you think something worn on head has this magical qualities defying the laws of physics?
"common sense" isn't data.
And we're obviously not talking about the forces that would remove a properly fitted helmet (and perhaps head) as well.
And we're obviously not talking about the forces that would remove a properly fitted helmet (and perhaps head) as well.
Go see accident videos, even with the most expensive helmets if you hit the pavement hard enough you'll get decapitated, this thing is as stupid as it gets. Wear a damn helmet.
Even a poorly fitting helmet will fly right off in an accident. A simple hat won't stay on the part of your noggin that needs protecting.
A poorly fitting helmet isn't spiral wrapped into ten feet of hair.
Sikh turbans aren't "a simple hat".
Sikh turbans aren't "a simple hat".
You have clearly never ridden a motorcycle. I'd advise watching some crash videos before talking about this subject.
The forces involved are incredible, even at fairly low speeds.
Asking for data for something so well supported is simply lazy. Go google "Snell tests" to get an idea of what properly designed helmets should protect against.
Asking for data for something so well supported is simply lazy. Go google "Snell tests" to get an idea of what properly designed helmets should protect against.
I have ridden a motorcycle, and know about the forces involved very well.
And the Snell Tests don't say anything about if Sikh turbans will come off at what speeds. Asking for data is a way to counteract "everyone knows this, it's just common sense" drivel that isn't actually true.
And the Snell Tests don't say anything about if Sikh turbans will come off at what speeds. Asking for data is a way to counteract "everyone knows this, it's just common sense" drivel that isn't actually true.
> And the Snell Tests don't say anything about if Sikh turbans will come off at what speeds.
Yes, they do: If they tear a person's head clean off with their helmet, they'll also tear a scalp and hair out.
Sanctity for religion is cool, until you start doing mental gymnastics away from the proof in the pudding.
Yes, they do: If they tear a person's head clean off with their helmet, they'll also tear a scalp and hair out.
Sanctity for religion is cool, until you start doing mental gymnastics away from the proof in the pudding.
Have you crashed one?
Just because something hasn't been measured, doesn't make a conclusion based on logical reasoning drivel.
"Well how do you know that I'll die if I jump off the Empire State Building?! You've never seen ME jump off the Empire State building!"
I'd say that seeing how much of a beating full-face helmets take when they hit the ground hard, it's a pretty logical leap to assume that anything less than that is going to suffer a worse fate.
Unless wrapping it in 10 feet of hair confers some magic physics defying powers.
Asking for data when there obviously is none, and then ignoring logical inference is poor form.
"Well how do you know that I'll die if I jump off the Empire State Building?! You've never seen ME jump off the Empire State building!"
I'd say that seeing how much of a beating full-face helmets take when they hit the ground hard, it's a pretty logical leap to assume that anything less than that is going to suffer a worse fate.
Unless wrapping it in 10 feet of hair confers some magic physics defying powers.
Asking for data when there obviously is none, and then ignoring logical inference is poor form.
Just how much hair do you think the Harley-riding demographic still has?
This is a dumb helmet, and if you survive a crash with it, you still won't look pretty.
However, it isn't much worse than the brain buckets Harley riders wear. Ironically, the loudest of the "loud pipes save lives" crowd tends to love riding without any protective equipment.
That being said, it's their problem. I wear full gear, they don't. They choose the risk they are willing to accept. Sure, tax dollars pay for their accidents, but in a world of smokers, heavy drinkers, cyclists running red lights and programmers never exercising, what's another person living dangerously?
However, it isn't much worse than the brain buckets Harley riders wear. Ironically, the loudest of the "loud pipes save lives" crowd tends to love riding without any protective equipment.
That being said, it's their problem. I wear full gear, they don't. They choose the risk they are willing to accept. Sure, tax dollars pay for their accidents, but in a world of smokers, heavy drinkers, cyclists running red lights and programmers never exercising, what's another person living dangerously?
> Open source for personal use
It is not open source.
It is not open source.
There seems to be a 'Download designs' link on top of the page. Isn't that it? Do we really need a Github link? Maybe it's not open contribution?
This isn't about software so I'm not sure "open source" is even the right terminology, but if it is then no it's not open source by any common definition. For example the open source initiative defines open source in a way that requires allowing commercial use: https://opensource.org/faq#commercial
> Isn't that it?
No, because of the "for personal use" restriction. Whether it is on Github has nothing to do with it.
No, because of the "for personal use" restriction. Whether it is on Github has nothing to do with it.
Open source simply means the source is publicly available. There can be, and often are, restrictions on how the source can be used.
It doesn't simply mean that. It means some fairly specific things [0], one of which is that there can be no "discrimination against fields of endeavor", which restriction on commercial use is.
[0] - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
[0] - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
FWIW, it is similar to some freeware program offer.
And calling the subject «open source» is similar blasphemy as publishing project without source to sourceforge.
And calling the subject «open source» is similar blasphemy as publishing project without source to sourceforge.
It seems like what is needed is a full-face, Snell tested helmet that accommodates a turban. It might have to be a bit bigger, but there's probably some market for this.
[deleted]
I am not a religious person, but I admire the Sikhs. They embrace equality and should be an example to other religions on how to truly help their community.
They make exemptions to their religion when it benefits society, like not wearing kirpans on airplanes. As much as I would hate to see a Sikh (or anyone for that matter) badly injured in a motorcycle crash, not wearing an approved helmet has no external victims - so I respect this as a good compromise. Please supplement this with a good backboard and an airbag vest that provides neck support.
They make exemptions to their religion when it benefits society, like not wearing kirpans on airplanes. As much as I would hate to see a Sikh (or anyone for that matter) badly injured in a motorcycle crash, not wearing an approved helmet has no external victims - so I respect this as a good compromise. Please supplement this with a good backboard and an airbag vest that provides neck support.
> but I admire the Sikhs. They embrace equality
Unfortunately this is true only on paper. I grew up in (Indian) Punjab, the heartland of Sikhism and a Sikh-majority region. In practice Sikhs participate as fully in the caste system as Hindus.
Matrimonial advertisements for arranged marriages in newspapers are segregated by religion and caste, and that's true in Sikhism as well. See https://www.tribuneindia.com/classified/grommswanted . Notice almost all the Sikh listings include caste names as well (Jat Sikh, Gursikh, Khatri, Ramdasia, etc).
Mazhabi Sikhs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazhabi_Sikh) who are from 'untouchable' Hindu backgrounds are still discriminated against. They marry within their own communities. I've known 'high caste' Sikh parents to reject a groom from a Mazhabi background even when the groom was a high-ranking government officer with a prestigious job (as in the kind where he always has a police cordon around him).
Punjabi comedy openly includes casteist slurs against mercantile Sikh castes. I could cite some but they are in Punjabi.
There's just so much against evidence against Sikhs not embracing equality in real life that I don't know where to start talking about it. They are simply no better and no worse than other Indians in this regard.
Unfortunately this is true only on paper. I grew up in (Indian) Punjab, the heartland of Sikhism and a Sikh-majority region. In practice Sikhs participate as fully in the caste system as Hindus.
Matrimonial advertisements for arranged marriages in newspapers are segregated by religion and caste, and that's true in Sikhism as well. See https://www.tribuneindia.com/classified/grommswanted . Notice almost all the Sikh listings include caste names as well (Jat Sikh, Gursikh, Khatri, Ramdasia, etc).
Mazhabi Sikhs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazhabi_Sikh) who are from 'untouchable' Hindu backgrounds are still discriminated against. They marry within their own communities. I've known 'high caste' Sikh parents to reject a groom from a Mazhabi background even when the groom was a high-ranking government officer with a prestigious job (as in the kind where he always has a police cordon around him).
Punjabi comedy openly includes casteist slurs against mercantile Sikh castes. I could cite some but they are in Punjabi.
There's just so much against evidence against Sikhs not embracing equality in real life that I don't know where to start talking about it. They are simply no better and no worse than other Indians in this regard.
In a country where the public picks up any part of one's medical bills, every taxpayer suffers the consequences of anyone's negligence.
I'm not saying that that fact has clear behavioral implications -- a world where nobody wad allowed to risk their health in any way would be both unjust and impossible -- but it's true.
I'm not saying that that fact has clear behavioral implications -- a world where nobody wad allowed to risk their health in any way would be both unjust and impossible -- but it's true.
Or, in a more positive framing, our society pays for the negative externalities of our more risk oriented members doing rad shit.
I am happy to pay through taxes for things like rescue services or medical bills for people who do things like rock climb or attempt ocean crossings in a solo kayak. Or even just ride a motorcycle without a helmet and look awesome.
The world is better and more interesting with these people in it.
I am happy to pay through taxes for things like rescue services or medical bills for people who do things like rock climb or attempt ocean crossings in a solo kayak. Or even just ride a motorcycle without a helmet and look awesome.
The world is better and more interesting with these people in it.
I suspect that those riding without helmets might actually be cheaper to treat. If you survive an accident but get your foot degloved, and you need an amputation and a prosthetic and months of physical therapy, and then a hip replacement years later because of your messed up gait, that's a lot of taxpayer money. If you die on impact, treatment is much cheaper.
> If you die on impact, treatment is much cheaper.
Plus, more organs for everyone else.
Plus, more organs for everyone else.
I feel the same way. Our shared opinion, though, might not be the democratically weighted norm.
Ideally people could self-select into places with different rules: some with higher taxes and more interesting people, some with the reverse.
Ideally people could self-select into places with different rules: some with higher taxes and more interesting people, some with the reverse.
Why should the public pay for that?
Sounds like they are taking additional risks for no good reasons, why not let the market price the insurance premium?
Sounds like they are taking additional risks for no good reasons, why not let the market price the insurance premium?
Everyone takes risks for no good reasons. Drink a coke? Alcohol? Smoke? Cross the road? Drive a car? Have a baby? Work? Don't work? Sleep too much? Don't sleep enough? Etc. It's impossible not to. We need to experience life, not just avoid all risks!
[deleted]
It's the 21st century, please don't use rules set in a different context.
They should just wear a helmet.
They should just wear a helmet.
“Irrational beliefs”? You think it’s the 21st century, and what is that based on exactly?
You are so right. The earth is flat. Shaving is bad. God cares about who you have sex with.
I like the work that Sikh community does. I've come across many good Sikh people. But their beliefs regarding hair is harmful in this case.
I like the work that Sikh community does. I've come across many good Sikh people. But their beliefs regarding hair is harmful in this case.
One of the reasons to not cut your hair and wear a turban is that a Sikh can't hide out in a crowd. You always know who is Sikh. This coupled with the mandate that a Sikh must always help those in need means that you always know where to look and ask for help.
From my perspective (US), this is a much needed belief today since it was born out of the similar circumstances in 1699.
From my perspective (US), this is a much needed belief today since it was born out of the similar circumstances in 1699.
Harley's and helmets weren't there then. Now if they want to ride they should wear a helmet, why make special exceptions for religious beliefs?
You’ve come across many good Shik’s? I wonder if you told them to their face your viewpoints on their irrational beliefs, somehow I doubt it and that’s why you edited your comment from “irrational beliefs” to “out of context”.
I felt irrational was too strong a word, there might have been good reasons for the turban in a different time, I don't see a good one for while riding a bike.
You just exploded my brain.
[deleted]
I respect religions even being agnostic, but this is completely stupid and irresponsible not for each one, but for others (it's called civil responsibility), wear a fucking helmet, don't be a corpse-wannabe.
Looks like their beliefs naturally forbids them to endanger themselves and the other on the road. So far so good.
I'll take my RF1400, thanks.
No chin strap, no protection for the chin, temples, unclear protection of the back of the head. This is useless, unless this serves just as an inspiration for a better design.
This seems worse than the typical skull cap helmet because of the no-chin strap. I'd imagine it'd fly off as soon as you hit a substantial bump or were going fast enough for it to catch wind.
Thing cannot be aerodynamic with all that ribbing, can it? It'd surely start rocking your head or something, right?
Thing cannot be aerodynamic with all that ribbing, can it? It'd surely start rocking your head or something, right?
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but IIRC the Sikh don't cut their hair as part of their religion and the turbans are a strip of cloth that gets folded around their hair and then it is wrapped around their head and tied tight. It doesn't seem like something that would fly off from the wind, although depending on how you crashed it could slide off your head easier than a standard helmet. I think the real question is how much would a couple millimeters of non-newtonian fluid do to reduce a motorcycle impact.
avalys(1)
As a safety conscious rider, it's hard to see this one way.
On one hand, the Sikh riders seem to really enjoy riding, and riding together. Nothing quite says "bad ass immigrant" like a flock of brown brothers on Harleys in matching turbans, rolling in a holiday parade. Turban and beard are very integral to their religious identity, no doubt about that.
On the other hand, riding without a helmet is a terrible idea, for both the rider and the community, which inevitably bears part of the consequences. Even purpose-built helmets without chin bars and face shields do little to change outcomes in the majority of crashes. Even at sub-freeway speeds. There are good reasons modern ECE and Snell ratings really require full-face helmets for street motorcycling applications.
I really, really hope this isn't a Sikh-specific rehash of the "party hat" phenomenon in the USA. Down here, some riders, and especially "scene" Harley-Davidson riders, reacted to helmet laws by selling cheap, minimal "helmets" that either claim to pass or just pass our laughably outdated DOT safety standards. These are little better than paper party hats, ticking a box to avoid obvious problems with police.
I'm not familiar with the full context in Canada. But law aside, anybody riding a motorcycle on public roads in a turban needs extra helpings of initial and refresher training, more insurance, and proactive estate planning.