No burqas when riding, ok...

**Ixion** · 5th April 2006, 17:52

Originally Posted by Marmoot

..

Edit: Anyone knows if driving a car while wearing helmets (or, let's make it "full-face motorcycle helmet") illegal? I'm concerned about my safety at times.

Certainly not illegal, but likely to attract the attention of Mr Plod. I actually drove thus (in a cage of course) for some weeks years ago. Got stopped twice, basically out of puzzlement 'Wotcha fink yer doin , then?". Much the same response as we used to get from cops if we wore a crash lid on a bike "Fink yer names Surtees d'ya then ? So how fast you planning to be goin to need that fing then ? "

**Sniper** · 5th April 2006, 17:54

Welcome to New Zealand, abide by our laws. If you don't like it............ FUCK OFF

**madboy** · 5th April 2006, 17:54

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Personal opinion: I honestly failed to see the logic in that when we're allowed to wear it in Motorcycle. What restricts vision in one would restrict vision in the other, No?

You ever tried wearing a helmet in a car? Not a lot of headroom. Worse when you've got a full roll cage in there, but at least it's usually padded so you don't scratch the helmet!

I can see arguments for and against in a car. The theory of a helmet is to protect where there is no other protection on a bike, whereas in a car you don't generally need as much protection cos there's a bit of car to go through before your head *usually* touches anything. Why potentially restrict someone's breathing and vision, and give them a higher chance of cervical injuries from the added weight of a helmet on their head if you don't really have to? But then you could say that about an airbag with a potential for minor injuries from that. Better than wearing a steering wheel though.

**MSTRS:Me** · 5th April 2006, 17:54

What people seem to be missing here is not the vision thing but the fact that these women are totally covered up. Their religion (or form of it) insists that they reveal no part of themselves to any man who is not their husband. So how are they supposed to have a photo taken for their NZ driver's licence for a start??

**Marmoot** · 5th April 2006, 17:58

Originally Posted by madboy

You ever tried wearing a helmet in a car? Not a lot of headroom. Worse when you've got a full roll cage in there, but at least it's usually padded so you don't scratch the helmet!

Not if you're driving a Honda Accord....
Wouldn't it be safe if everyone wears full leather and helmets?
We'll probably reach that ZERO FATALITIES that the government always yearn for.

In fact, I think that's the only solution for 100kph speedlimit. 5-point seatbelts, rollcage, fire retardant suits and helmets for everybody. Babies are not exempt.

**Marmoot** · 5th April 2006, 18:01

Originally Posted by MSTRS

What people seem to be missing here is not the vision thing but the fact that these women are totally covered up. Their religion (or form of it) insists that they reveal no part of themselves to any man who is not their husband. So how are they supposed to have a photo taken for their NZ driver's licence for a start??

I suppose if they unwrap for driver-licensing photo then it should be ok?
Or would you still be unsatisfied and would press on insisting they unwrap everywhere, therefore banning burqas from NZ?

The question then, if you ban something from someone else's religious belief, won't we (NZ) be degrading ourselves to the same level as middle-eastern countries where religious intolerance is rife?
If so, where is the so-called 'freedom' that we Western (read: "more-civilized) civilization boast?

If CanWest (C4) can broadcast Bloody Mary episode and a lot of kiwibiker members agree "if you don't like it, look away" in the reason for freedom-of-expression, then burqa-wearing women should be able to apply the same principle "if you don't like it, look away" as long as they stay legal (remove their burqa when applying for driver licensing). Banning burqas would be in contradiction with the said principle, No?

I fail to see that.....

Edit: This is argument's sake only. I don't have anything against or for burqa, but some people's behaviour and remarks are simply contradicting to the values that they preach.

**Ixion** · 5th April 2006, 18:02

People would still drive themselves into creeks and rivers and drown in the cage.

Incidentally does anyone know the reaosn why full 5 point harness is not legal for road use ? (I believe this to be the case - correction welcomed). Seems totally fatuous.

**Marmoot** · 5th April 2006, 18:06

Originally Posted by Ixion

Incidentally does anyone know the reaosn why full 5 point harness is not legal for road use ? (I believe this to be the case - correction welcomed). Seems totally fatuous.

So 4-point is legal?

**Ixion** · 5th April 2006, 18:08

Originally Posted by Marmoot

I suppose if they unwrap for driver-licensing photo then it should be ok?
Or would you still be unsatisfied and would press on insisting they unwrap everywhere, therefore banning burqas from NZ?

The question then, if you ban something from someone else's religious belief, won't we (NZ) be degrading ourselves to the same level as middle-eastern countries where religious intolerance is rife?
If so, where is the so-called 'freedom' that we Western (read: "more-civilized) civilization boast?

If CanWest (C4) can broadcast Bloody Mary episode and a lot of kiwibiker members agree "if you don't like it, look away" in the reason for freedom-of-expression, then burqa-wearing women should be able to apply the same principle "if you don't like it, look away" as long as they stay legal (remove their burqa when applying for driver licensing). Banning burqas would be in contradiction with the said principle, No?

I fail to see that.....

Well , there is a difference if the objection is based on a restriction of visibility. If drivers cannot properly see where they are going, then that is a hazard to all road users.

I do not know if they *do* adversely affect vision, since I have never worn one. Looking at them it seems that they would. It seems an objective matter that could easily be put to the test by the appropriate authorities. But presumably the polcie objection *is* based on visibility (since I cannot think of any othe reason), and they may have put it to such a test ?

If there are no functional problems I for one could not care less. People can wear whatever they want to (or not want to, for that matter).

(Gotta say in passing, I always reckon those habjib head scarves are dead sexy)

**Madness** · 5th April 2006, 18:09

Make them ride Camels!!!
If the police are concerned that criminals will get the idea to wear Burkha's to avoid identification, maybe going on telly talking about such concerns isn't such a good idea. More likely a traffic conviction has been overturned somewhere due to an identification issue, a lot happens in our courts that we don't seem to hear about, like rape convictions.

**MSTRS:Me** · 5th April 2006, 18:10

Originally Posted by Marmoot

I suppose if they unwrap for driver-licensing photo then it should be ok?
Or would you still be unsatisfied and would press on insisting they unwrap everywhere, therefore banning burqas from NZ?

No, cos it doesn't end there. The licence photo is a means of id so they would have to uncover everytime to prove they are that person. If this wasn't a problem, where is the need to wear it at all?? Ban them, fullstop.