Exemptions to the helmet law

[Holy Roller]

I now feel uncomfortable riding down the driveway without one.

It's surprising how quickly one gets used to wearing no helmet.
A couple of seasons ago when I was milking, no helmet was worn, it was our choice if we wanted to wear one. I'm sure OSH is trying to change that
Used to ride down state 30 regularly to get the cows, never got stopped by the cops passing through, but stopped them as the cows crossed the road

[Lou Girardin]

There used to be an exemption for farm bikers, 30km/h limit though.

[RiderInBlack]

OSH would like farmers to wear helmets even on the quads. The only farmers I've seen do this are the ones working for Landcorp.

[pete376403]

IIRC the death by accident rate for farmers is about 1 per week (all type of farm accidents, not just bikes /quads). Anything that OSH can do to reduce this is probably a good thing

[KATWYN]

Brains are a better look inside the head where they belong,
not outside on the road.

I don't know why some people think its unfair and that the
turban wearer is better off for being "allowed" to not wear a helmet.

And as far as someone having to pay and being a drain on hospital
resources- something tells me no helmet and a sport bike would
be fairly final and would end at the accident.

[cruzer]

Coming down the southern Motorway doing about 100KMS 2 wheels and a sidecar. The Driver and Pillion both with helmets and the two kids in the sidecar no helmet.
It made me rather curious as I would have though that it was compulsory to wear helmets in a sidecar, otherwise, why would it be a requirement for helmets for the rider.
The amazing thing was that just as I was wondering whether it was legal or not a Highway Patrol Cop went pass and did nothing, I guess it,s legal??

[Eurodave]

The law has changed so a helmet in a sidecar is now compulsary

[Fluffy Cat]

Yeah well i've just done the 10 millonth non helmet wearing sikh at Auck hosp OR today you are right the 0.00000001% of the pop are a drain on resources...Then again we do see a lot of rugby players hmmm.

[Brian d marge]

It's surprising how quickly one gets used to wearing no helmet.
A couple of seasons ago when I was milking, no helmet was worn, it was our choice if we wanted to wear one. I'm sure OSH is trying to change that
Used to ride down state 30 regularly to get the cows, never got stopped by the cops passing through, but stopped them as the cows crossed the road

I was a bike Mechanic in Greece for a couple of years, small island ,,Never wore helmets ...
Arrived back in London, jumped on bike, had driven into the city ( about 10 k ) before it dawned on me I should have been wearing a helmet ,,
No police and no other m/c .....to remind me

I Always now wear Gloves , boots and helmet (MIN requirements ) as its easier to keep a naked arse off the road .......

[Wolf]

not 100% on this, but the turban is not religious in itself:

Sikh are warriors and were told that they should train for fighting so much that they would not have time to cut their hair or shave, the turban is just the easiest way to hold their hair out of the way and be a primitive helmet for battle. Also the top of the head is covered for respect to people and gods. A helmet should serve all these purposes too.

Am I wrong? there must be at least one person on this site who knows for sure

I have a large number of Sikh friends and my understanding is that they can get dispensation from their priests to allow them to cut their hair for work-purposes, etc. A friend of mine is a very devout Sikh yet his hair is short as he works in the IRD and "has to look presentable". I also went to school with a few Sikhs who had their hair cut short (even though other Sikhs at the same school wore turbans).

Being a Sikh does not mean they have to have long hair wrapped up in a turban. They can opt to have short hair if work or other choices they make (including riding motorcycles) would require it.

I was given to understand that it's not a major issue - it's not like they go to some equivalent of "Hell" for cutting their hair.

[Ixion]

I have a large number of Sikh friends and my understanding is that they can get dispensation from their priests to allow them to cut their hair for work-purposes, etc. A friend of mine is a very devout Sikh yet his hair is short as he works in the IRD and "has to look presentable". I also went to school with a few Sikhs who had their hair cut short (even though other Sikhs at the same school wore turbans).

Being a Sikh does not mean they have to have long hair wrapped up in a turban. They can opt to have short hair if work or other choices they make (including riding motorcycles) would require it.

I was given to understand that it's not a major issue - it's not like they go to some equivalent of "Hell" for cutting their hair.

That is also my understanding . Guru Govind Singh, who founded the Khalsa told Sikhs to wear five symbols of their faith (the 5 K's):

Kesh (long fair worn in a knot), Kangha (a comb), Kirpan (sword), Kara (a steel bangle) and Kaccha (shorts).

In modern society, some of these have had to be put to one side (eg the sword) or worn only in a symbolic form (some Sikhs wear a little sword "amulet"). The long hair worn in top knot can be treated the same way.

It is not a "do this or go to hell" thing, but rather a "do this to show that you are proud of your faith".

As far as I know there is no RELIGIOUS requirement to wear a turban (for any Indian religion) . Just the long hair, which could perfectly well fit into a crash helmet. The turban is a social construct. In much the same way as, when I was a lad, no self respecting woman would have gone out in public without a hat or shawl covering her head. Any woman who did would have been taken for a prostitute. No law, civil or religious. Just one of those "All decent people do it " things.

The above is my understanding and may well be imperfect. Correction is welcomed.

[bgd]

On a cycle (that's with pedals) site over here the way to start a war is bring up the helmet debate. It's the usual arguments that we've all heard but what I find interesting are the stats that get quoted. Significantly more head injuries are suffered by car passengers and pedestrians than cyclists. So the argument goes that why aren't these two groups targeted ahead of cyclists. Cycle helmets are not compulsory over here.

As for me, I'm very happy with compulsory motorcycle and voluntary cycle helmet rules. I usually wear a cycle helmet.

[Gremlin]

Having hit a parked car (shuddup, it was 7 years ago, and I was younger) at about 40-50km/h, and destroying the helmet, I reckon its the same as motorcycles.

You can always buy another helmet, but you only have one head. Accidents happen, and its no good wishing you had worn one.