Ontario's helmet law discriminates against devout Sikhs, court told

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

so completely ban cigarettes and liquor and red meat. to hell with everyones freedoms if it might cost me money.

Yeah, and let's make pregnant single mothers and people with HIV pay for their own healthcare, I mean they didn't wear a condom.

Seriously, choice matters and the safety net should be there to protect everyone.

[flip]

I am actually quite shocked at this verdict. Don't get me wrong I think it was the right one but usually Canadian Judges are waaaaaaay too sympathetic for this kind of frivolous crap.

If you religious beliefs cause you to break the law while doing an otherwise legal activity then don't do it. Makes sense no?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

so completely ban cigarettes and liquor and red meat. to hell with everyones freedoms if it might cost me money.

i think you kind of missed the point. These things you mentioned aren't illegal like riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Saying that these things should be illegal or arguing that you should have to pay some sort of "health tax" based on your diet and lifestyle is another very difficult argument.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by flip

Don't get me wrong I think it was the right one but usually Canadian Judges are waaaaaaay too sympathetic for this kind of frivolous crap.

I agree, this was the right decision, but I can't off the top of my head think of any examples of Canadian judges being sympathetic to this kind of crap (and by this kind of crap I mean allowing certain religious groups to ignore laws that the rest of us have to follow).

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Eventually religious freedom is going to cost lives.

It's only a matter of time.

[Ironhorse]

Riding a motor cycle is not a constitutional right - it is a privilege that is earned by abiding by the rules of said privilege. Case dismissed.

[Bobblehead]

While I agree with the ruling, Sikhs are already allowed to go without a helmet in BC and Manitoba. I wonder if this will be appealed to a higher court.

[Locke]

I've gotta say, this doesnt even seem like a reasonable complaint.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by flip

i think you kind of missed the point. These things you mentioned aren't illegal like riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Saying that these things should be illegal or arguing that you should have to pay some sort of "health tax" based on your diet and lifestyle is another very difficult argument.

why should the government play safety police in one case and not the other? both can have serious (if not lethal) health effects.

in fact, there is MORE justification to completely ban cigarettes and booze than create a mandatory helmet law. the helmet law only effects the wearer. cigarettes and booze can effect a lot more people. lets ban everything.

edit: and i understand the point you were making about exceptions to the law. i just don't like the thought of deciding about other people's freedoms based solely on how it will affect my tax bill.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Dirty Mr. Clean

The reason the Sikh wear a turban is that they believe their hair should be covered. Can't a helmet provide the same thing?

Wow, that might be one of the more ignorant comments I have seen on here.....and Jews wear the yamaka to cover the bald patch on the back of their head

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

why should the government play safety police in one case and not the other? both can have serious (if not lethal) health effects.

Well, let's leave cigarettes out of it for the time being because that is a seperate arguement; and you won't find many people who think that cigarettes should be allowed. Non-smokers want to see them gone; and most smokers wish they had never started.

However booze and red meat- both of those consumed in appropriate quantities can be quite healthy. The problems with both come into play when used in excess. However in any motorcycle accident where the head strikes something, the helmet almost always helps.

Now for the "doesn't affect others"- we've been down this road before. Two scenarios:
- I hit a guy and it's my fault. Wearing a helmet he has some minor injuries, sues me for $20K, insurance pays for it. We're both happy. But if he isn't wearing it he ends up being a vegtable, family sues for $1.5 million, my insurance is $1M, and I lose my house.
- I hit a guy; he ran a red light but I was also changing a CD at the time. He dies. Now I have to live with the guilt for the rest of my life; and may never be able to listen to Nickleback ever again without pain running through me. (wait- that's now. nevermind.)

This doesn't even get into the insurance rates for all, taxes, etc.

Then let's take it to the extreme. We have people who's beliefs state they must not show off the colour red. Are we going to allow those people to disconnect their brake lights (ie- other safety equipment) to satisfy their beliefs?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Now for the "doesn't affect others"- we've been down this road before. Two scenarios:
- I hit a guy and it's my fault. Wearing a helmet he has some minor injuries, sues me for $20K, insurance pays for it. We're both happy. But if he isn't wearing it he ends up being a vegtable, family sues for $1.5 million, my insurance is $1M, and I lose my house.

Then let's take it to the extreme. We have people who's beliefs state they must not show off the colour red. Are we going to allow those people to disconnect their brake lights (ie- other safety equipment) to satisfy their beliefs?

The first part is completely wrong. If it is your fault and he is not wearing a helmet he would be contributorily negligent and would be apportioned his share of the accident costs (under your scenario 1.48 million)

Your extreme example is just bizarre, but if that was ever to happen you would be forced to put in another colour of light into your vehicle for your brakes. Unless their beliefs were against showing any colour, in which case I imagine they would kill themselves as the human flesh itself is a colour.

Hope that helps.

[Bobblehead]

Just to back up you point, Kenn; from the article posted (which apparently few people have read)

Crown lawyers argued helmet laws protect against devastating head injuries and save the public health-care system millions of dollars.

Non-fatal motorcycle accidents can cost the public purse up to $2.4 million, while fatal crashes can cost almost $20 million, according to Crown documents filed with the court.

I'm not sure how a fatal crash can cost that much, but it is probably part of the court record if anyone is really interested.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by ken0042

- I hit a guy and it's my fault. Wearing a helmet he has some minor injuries, sues me for $20K, insurance pays for it. We're both happy. But if he isn't wearing it he ends up being a vegtable, family sues for $1.5 million, my insurance is $1M, and I lose my house.

alright, this i will admit is a valid and good point about the entire situation i hadn't considered.
you win this round, ken0042. *shakes fist*

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

alright, this i will admit is a valid and good point about the entire situation i hadn't considered.
you win this round, ken0042. *shakes fist*

Just so I am clear, if you hit a guy with a helmet and the damage is $20,000 and it was your fault, you are on the hook for $20,000 dollars

If you hit a guy without a helmet and it is your fault and the damage would have been $20,000 with a helmet and without a helmet it was 1.5 million dollars, you would be on the hook for $20,000 dollars and the individual not wearing a helmet would be on the hook for 1.48 million dollars.

There would be no difference between the two accidents as far as your personal liability. In both scenario's that Kenn presented you would be on the hook for $20,000 dollars and not a penny more.

If anyone wants to read it, this is the statute outlining this principle

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Ac...sbn=0779704924

[flip]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

why should the government play safety police in one case and not the other? both can have serious (if not lethal) health effects.

in fact, there is MORE justification to completely ban cigarettes and booze than create a mandatory helmet law. the helmet law only effects the wearer. cigarettes and booze can effect a lot more people. lets ban everything.

edit: and i understand the point you were making about exceptions to the law. i just don't like the thought of deciding about other people's freedoms based solely on how it will affect my tax bill.

I don't like the thought of deciding about other people's freedoms based solely on how it will affect my tax bill either but what we are talking about here is that these things (cigs, alc and red meat) as of right now are legal and riding without a helmet is illegal. hence he should've lost this lawsuit. Like I said the argument about whether these things SHOULD be illegal is another story altogether. For this argument, or discussion if you will, we are only talking about the current laws.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Just so I am clear, if you hit a guy with a helmet and the damage is $20,000 and it was your fault, you are on the hook for $20,000 dollars

If you hit a guy without a helmet and it is your fault and the damage would have been $20,000 with a helmet and without a helmet it was 1.5 million dollars, you would be on the hook for $20,000 dollars and the individual not wearing a helmet would be on the hook for 1.48 million dollars.

There would be no difference between the two accidents as far as your personal liability. In both scenario's that Kenn presented you would be on the hook for $20,000 dollars and not a penny more.

If anyone wants to read it, this is the statute outlining this principle

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Ac...sbn=0779704924

I guess I may have just skimmed that page too quickly, but I read it as distributing the blame based on who is at fault; not who mittigated their loss. It talks about degree of being at fault. So in my being at fault example, let's say I ran a red light- buddy on the bike had the green and was doing the limit. I am still at fault 100%; so responsible for 100% of the damages.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess I may have just skimmed that page too quickly, but I read it as distributing the blame based on who is at fault; not who mittigated their loss. It talks about degree of being at fault. So in my being at fault example, let's say I ran a red light- buddy on the bike had the green and was doing the limit. I am still at fault 100%; so responsible for 100% of the damages.

That is not how the law works. The law works under your scenario 2 individuals would be at fault, therefore 1(1) of the act is in play. 1(2) is in play in the sense that you are not responsible for damages that were not your fault. Your scenario would unfold as follows:

1) You ran a red light and hit the guy
2) Guy suffers damages
3) Court hears how much the total damages are
4) Court weighs the evidence to determine how much the damages would have been had the individual been wearing a helmet and apportions fault
5) You are responsible for the amount of financial damages of the accident had it occurred if the individual had been wearing a helmet. This is your fault
6) The bike rider is responsible for the damages that resulted as a result of him not wearing a helmet. This is his fault

In your example the bike rider would have suffered 20,000 in damages if he had been wearing a helmet. Those are damages that would have occurred if the bike rider did nothing to contribute to the total cost of the damages. That portion is bearable by you

The bike rider suffered an additional 1.48 million in damages as a result of riding without a helmet. Those damages are attributable to the bike rider. He is responsible for paying for those damages.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is not how the law works. The law works under your scenario as the following:

1) You ran a red light and hit the guy
2) Guy suffers damages
3) Court hears how much the total damages are
4) Court weighs the evidence to determine how much the damages would have been had the individual been wearing a helmet
5) You are responsible for the amount of financial damages of the accident had it occurred if the individual had been wearing a helmet
6) The bike rider is responsible for the damages that resulted as a result of him not wearing a helmet

In your example the bike rider would have suffered 20,000 in damages if he had been wearing a helmet. Those are damages that would have occurred if the bike rider did nothing to contribute to the total cost of the damages. That portion is bearable by you

The bike rider suffered an additional 1.48 million in damages as a result of riding without a helmet. Those damages are attributable to the bike rider. He is responsible for paying for those damages.

Pretty hard to prove what was sustained without a helmet and what wouldn't have been.

You will never be able to prove it so Kens point sticks.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Pretty hard to prove what was sustained without a helmet and what wouldn't have been.

You will never be able to prove it so Kens point sticks.

Well it is proved all the time. That is why they have expert witnesses in court rooms.

The following are decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal on Contributory Negligence

http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/...08abca0056.pdf
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/...07abca0004.pdf

http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/...04abca0374.pdf

The last one is a case where a drunk smoked a work truck and caused brain damage for the drunk driver. The company that the individual worked for was assessed 75% of the damage despite the fact that the individual who hit the vehicle was legally driving while impaired.

Again, courts do this all the time. It would be very easy for a court to make a judgment on what was caused by the crash and what was caused by lack of wearing a helmet.