Did you hear about the girl who was so keen on putting road safety first that she always wore white at night? Last winter, she was knocked down by a snowplow.
That’s a joke but it’s no joke that “safety first” has been a long-standing slogan. It’s become increasingly evident in our safety-conscious society, with zero compromise towards safety.
However, that’s no longer the case.
Alberta has now joined Manitoba and British Columbia in allowing turbans to be worn instead of motorbike helmets. Personally, I don’t find it alarming, simply because I grew up in a time where we rode motorbikes all the time without wearing protective head gear. But after seeing the injuries from numerous motorbike accidents, I sincerely appreciate the fact that people I care about wear helmets while riding motorbikes.
Even Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “Government’s first duty and highest obligation is public safety.” So why are Canadian provinces making these decisions?
The president of the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association explained it this way: “The government should always strive to accommodate free expression, especially when the expression does not harm others who make this choice, nor further restricts the reasonable choices of its citizens.”
[emember_protected for=”2″ custom_msg=’For more on this story, please see the Apr. 6 print edition of The Cross Roads.’]
But what happens when a motorist accidentally hits a biker who suffers fatal head injuries because he wasn’t wearing a helmet? Even the legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada made the observation that Canadians don’t want to be liable for any accident that involves a turban wearer.
Today, many safety experts believe that our impressive record in motorcycle safety is a result of our stringent safety laws. The fact that motorcycles share the road with larger, heavier vehicles, and their riders lack any protective covering, makes helmets essential in avoiding injury or death.
The NDP MLA for Edmonton-Ellerslie, who has a large number of Sikh constituents, was credited for taking the lead on this issue. The exemption was granted as recognition of their civil and religious rights.
It was also noted that the number of people who will be wearing a turban is going to be very small, so the decision was made on the balance that it was the right thing to do. Yet Alberta alone is home to more than 52,000 members of the Sikh religion, according to a 2011 census. In Canada, the figure is close to 300,000. How many people does it have to impact before it’s considered unsafe?
Though government officials think the number of drivers wearing turbans will be very small, the Sikh Motorcycle Club reasoned that this change will bring some new opportunities to bike repair shops, accessories shops and motorcycle dealerships.
An emergency room physician said he is concerned about the dangers of riding without a helmet, and said it was unfortunate that this decision didn’t get debated publicly.
In Ontario, the mandatory helmet law is based on research that shows the high risk of injury and death for motorcyclists who ride without a helmet.
So where does Canada draw the line on accommodating free expression? What about hard hats on construction sites or oilfield sites?
What about hockey helmets? If accommodations are made in one sector, does it set a precedent for other sectors?
Does safety come first, or does freedom of expression come first? Does freedom of expression come first as long as 52,000 people or less are affected? Those are just a few questions that come to mind.
[/emember_protected] 
