# Sikh Harrased For Not Wearing Helmet



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 2, 2008)

lol

the guy doesnot wear turban, my guess from the picture

the rule book says - sikhs wearing turban are exempt

anyways - he got his 5 minutes of fame 

btw, if a sikh is not wearing a turban, why can't he wear helmet?

its for his own safety !!!!!

i have seen young guys wearing patkas or very small safas driving bikes without helmets

when caught they use soem logic to reason which is completely illogical

same bouraah was created by sikh women in chandigarh and punjab

they refused to wear helmet even though none of them wore turbans

the motor authority rules state that prson wearing a headgear, sufficient for protection, like the sikh turban, are exempt from helmets


----------



## Sikh80 (Feb 2, 2008)

Amar ji, sikhs are considered aliens down south.I had this experience in Mysore esp. in Vrindavan Gardens. They stare and laugh that make you have cramps in stomach.
Many T companies have their offices there and economy of the state is flourishing and they can afford to neglect anyone they like. Further christianity is taking hold in the weaker sections. 
Conversions offer some pecuniary benefits as well.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 2, 2008)

outside of bangalore, there are what, like 5 sikhs in karnataka?    i'm not surprised they didn't know the rules.

also, i have to agree...  the law is so that sikhs can wear turbans.  if they're not wearing turbans, they should wear helmets.

sikhs recently won the right to ride with their turban instead of a helmet in parts of Canada.  but they must be wearing a turban, otherwise they're subject to the same laws as everyone else.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 2, 2008)

<<Amar ji, sikhs are considered aliens down south.I had this experience in Mysore esp. in Vrindavan Gardens. They stare and laugh that make you have cramps in stomach.
Many T companies have their offices there and economy of the
state is flourishing and they can afford to neglect anyone they like. >>>

either you must be oddly dressed or something.....

i know about bangalore, hyderabad and chennai

sikhs are a sizeable population there, especially those who waer turbans

and quite sizeable number work in those tech companies too

your second sentence seems to point out that you think that southern states don't know about sikhs or discriminate with them, which is incorrect


the chief of police of karnataka is a sikh, their head of income tax is sikh and quite senior officals in hyderabad & warangal are sikhs

jasleen ji

bidar in karantaka has sizeable population of sikhs, in fact they are 20% population of the city

apart from that most of major cities in karnataka have decent number of sikhs

trust me, if guessing by this guy's surname, he might be relative of the head of gurudwara committee in bangalore. the local gurudwara committee elections are near


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 3, 2008)

Amar you want to say that sikhs that wear patka should wear helmets.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 3, 2008)

ofcourse yes



and i am a supporter enforcement of law to make pillion riders wear helmets


now some might give a logic that the joora is too big...etc etc etc

here is a simple answer - the law is clear and for their safety and other's convenience. either wear turban while driving, or buy a helmet that fits, or give up driving a bike


----------



## Sinister (Feb 4, 2008)

:idea:

sikhs with hair should consider wearing this, when on the bike: :{;o: 

(please note the smoothe and aerodynamic curves; chain mail sold separately)


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 4, 2008)

btw

how does helmet link up with sikhism?

turban and helmet confict is fine...but what is the great anti helmet feeling?

 hmm

let me guess...

must be some rehetnama....


lemme google...

ok....

here is it..

the root cause of all senseless behavior....

"Sikh Hoay Sir Topi Tarey
Saat Janam Kushti Hoay Mareh"

"A Sikh of the Guru, who wears a hat/cap (something other than a turban)
Will be reborn again 7 times in diseased lifeforms."
Rehatnama Bhai Prehlad Singh ji, p.65


so....................

this gets us to the root cause of all this hooo haaa haaa


----------



## Sinister (Feb 4, 2008)

sikhs should wear helmets... and that picture is living proof that sikhs wore helmets without turbans (to protect themselves).

i dont think cloth will protect your head if its pounded against pavement at a significant velocity. the turban offers minimal protection at best.

someone should design a modern helmet like the one in the pick and make a few $ while they are at it.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 4, 2008)

If you want to kill a religion then you don't need Aurangzeb liberals like Amar will do this job in few years :}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}:

Amar and sinister it is not your duty to tell sikhs whether they should wear helmets or not
Some sikhs will find no objection in it while others will even stop driving 2 wheelers as they beleive that wearing helmets is against it.

When other religions are getting rights then why sikhs can't get special rights.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 4, 2008)

<<Amar and sinister it is not your duty to tell sikhs whether they should wear helmets or not
Some sikhs will find no objection in it while others will even stop driving 2 wheelers as they beleive that wearing helmets is against it.

When other religions are getting rights then why sikhs can't get special rights.>>

its my duty to defend the law, even if vocally, when some stupid religious fanatic wants to whip up public opinion to suit his ends.

and if you have read all my posts, i do it against all religious bigots, irrespective of their religion 

what special rights?

its clearly given as a special right that turban wearing sikhs are exempt from wearing helmet.

why should patka qualify as a protective headgear?

90% of road accident deaths happen due to head injury. helmets save lives and also legal hassles for people who get into accidents. one person's recklessness of not wearing helmet might lead another person to long sentences if there is a death in accidents.



too much fanaticism makes stoneheads, so maybe they can be exempt


<<

If you want to kill a religion then you don't need Aurangzeb liberals like Amar will do this job in few years>>

thanks KDS ji

i actually take it as a compliment.

Guru Nanak actually started out to say no to religions and their fanatic dogmas, not create another


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 4, 2008)

> its clearly given as a special right that turban wearing sikhs are exempt from wearing helmet.
> 
> why should patka qualify as a protective headgear?





Some people beleive that patka is also small dastaar.so now government will decide which type of turban sikhs should wear.

If you are so worried about India then start a camgaign that indian government should allow cow slaughter and export of beef.because according to many economists indian economy is bearing burden of keeping useless cows and oxen some beleive that burden is as high as 18000 crore rupees per year.Also it promotes illegal exports of cattle to pakistan and bangladesh.



> i actually take it as a compliment.
> 
> Guru Nanak actually started out to say no to religions and they fanatic dogmas, not create another



Guru nanak in his 6th form introduced concept of miri and piri in sikhism and its quite clear that sikhs were following code of conduct before guru gobind singh ji.so no government can stop sikhs to follow sikh code of conduct to sikhs who want to follow them


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 4, 2008)

<<Guru nanak in his 6th form introduced concept of miri and piri in sikhism and its quite clear that sikhs were following code of conduct before guru gobind singh ji.so no government can stop sikhs to follow sikh code of conduct to sikhs who want to follow them>>

can you provide a reference from Guru Nanak or any other Guru's writings or SGGS that patka = dastaar = Sikh 

its the Pagg = Sikh discussion again 

patka is a dastaar


well

this is like those guys who get their beards formed(by slow burn of hair) rather than cutting.. 

height of hypocrisy

cows were a poor attempt of diversion


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 4, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> ofcourse yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i have to agree.  patkas are designed for playing sports, nothing more.  they do not offer any protection at all to the head.  at slow street speeds, i think a turban would offer some protection (some styles more than others!) in a minor crash.  a patka would not.  if the person is so against wearing a turban, they can either figure out a way to tie their patka so they can wear a helmet too (ie: joodha in the back), or they can simply not ride.  it makes perfect sense to me.

the law says turbaned sikhs don't have to wear a helmet because the turban is required by SRM.  there's nothing in SRM about a patka.  and there's also nothing in SRM against wearing protective headgear, only hats (specifically topi, i think).   and motorcycle helmet is certainly not a topi. 

in my state, there is no helmet law at all, for anyone.  my preference is to wear a very compact keski with a helmet over the top.  in very slow-casual riding situations, a dumalla or very round dastaar will do (without the helmet).  

i CAN understand why people want the right to wear their Guru-given dastaar when they ride.  i cannot understand why people want to ride around with absolutely no protection for their heads.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 4, 2008)

> can you provide a reference from Guru Nanak or any other Guru's writings or SGGS that patka = dastaar = Sikh
> 
> its the Pagg = Sikh discussion again
> 
> patka is a dastaar



So you want to say that sikhs were foolishly wearing turbans despite the fact it was not at all prescribed by any sikh guru.what about rehat.I think you should discuss this issue with vijaydeep singh ji if he visit this site.

Anyway majority of sikhs beleive that without dastaar a person is not sikh and you can't change their thinking.The main issue here is not whether dastaar=pagg the main issue is right of sikh = not wearing helmet



> cows were a poor attempt of diversion



Not at all just showing you even economy could suffer because some people's sentiment get hurt.While here a sikh is endangering his life not of other.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 4, 2008)

> i have to agree. patkas are designed for playing sports, nothing more. they do not offer any protection at all to the head. at slow street speeds, i think a turban would offer some protection (some styles more than others!) in a minor crash. a patka would not. if the person is so against wearing a turban, they can either figure out a way to tie their patka so they can wear a helmet too (ie: joodha in the back), or they can simply not ride. it makes perfect sense to me.



Thin turbans too can't provide any protection.college going sikhs these days wear  patka's because they have to do lot of fun.


----------



## Astroboy (Feb 4, 2008)

Rehat Maryada says 5 Ks.
 That helmet is awesome.


----------



## Sinister (Feb 4, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Amar and sinister it is not your duty to tell sikhs whether they should wear helmets or not.


 
yeap your right 100%

ill just sit back and let mother nature deliver that message for me.

modern helmets provide significantly more protection because of the hardness of the carbon-fiber shell...the impact energy is converted into vibrations and then absorbed by the inner layers of hard foam and then by the soft cushions lining your head. (you also have your skin, skull and CSF fluid for further cushioning of the brain)
a turban cannot provide the harder outer shell protection. A turban also has a knack of coming off when it is tied loosely and experiences high G acceleration. Most turbans expose the areas on the anterior of the parietal bone (on the top of your cranium)...im talking about serious damage...the anterior fontanelle and sagittal suture are left exposed (these are the weak areas within your skull)...the turban provides minimal protection to the occipital bone, parietal and frontal eminence.



anyways
its just not safe thats all...although you should be free to wear whatever you wish. just dont complain when they are scraping pieces of your brain, off the freeway.:wink:


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 4, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Thin turbans too can't provide any protection.college going sikhs these days wear  patka's because they have to do lot of fun.




so what did college going sikhs wear before patkas were invented?  they've only been around, what, 30-40 years, right?

sorry, i don't buy that.  patkas are for kids or cricketers... while they're playing cricket.  they have no place on the head of a man with a beard.  it's just weird.  and it's certainly not a turban, so shouldn't substitute for a helmet.


if i were riding without a helmet, nothing less than a 7+ meter dumalla would do for me.   trust me, there's lots of padding there. 
however, it certainly wouldn't help in a crash over 30 mhp or so.  small keski + full face helmet is best, in my opinion.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

> so what did college going sikhs wear before patkas were invented? they've only been around, what, 30-40 years, right?



There is phenominal change in India in 30-40 years .There were hardly any bikes for common man 30-40 years ago.I don't think sikhs ever played sports with wearing turban.
Just look at picture's of milkha singh he participated in olympics with only wearing hanky
on joora also look at picture's of  hockey team upto 70's you will find hardly any player who played hockey with turban.

Tell me how could one dive's with wearing a turban.Patka's has provided much support for sikhs or you would have found more and more sikhs cutting their hair.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<So you want to say that sikhs were foolishly wearing turbans despite the fact it was not at all prescribed by any sikh guru.what about rehat.I think you should discuss this issue with vijaydeep singh ji if he visit this site.

Anyway majority of sikhs beleive that without dastaar a person is not sikh and you can't change their thinking.The main issue here is not whether dastaar=pagg the main issue is right of sikh = not wearing helmet>>
yes i cannot change anyone's thinking, and i am not trying to do 

not wearing helmets not only endangers the driver but also people with whom they will crash

anyone would hate to see someone's brains fly out after a crash with their car/truck

i don't have to wait for Vijaydeep ji. A SINGLE direct and exact reference from SGGS to this "no topi" or "Pagg=Sikh" mumbo jumbo will suffice.

pls donot quote rehetnamas, they are as good as nowadays you declaring patka=pagg


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

> i don't have to wait for Vijaydeep ji. A SINGLE direct and exact reference from SGGS to this "no topi" or "Pagg=Sikh" mumbo jumbo will suffice.



SGGS is pure spirtuality.Also many people manipulate quote's from sggs to prove their points.I think you very well know that apart from guru granth we also have concept of panth to take decisions and the whole panth is is unamously agree with it that sikhs should keep uncut hair.

Today you are advoctaing helmets what's next Not allowing turbaned sikhs to serve in army because of safety purpose and even I heard that some airplane's also require pilot's to become clean shaven.

so in other words just ask sikhs to cut their hair and remove turbans directly.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

Amar ji

Please also tell me about what sikh women should do when they driving 2 wheelers or as pillion rider 99.99% sikh women don't wear turban


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<Please also tell me about what sikh women should do when they driving 2 wheelers or as pillion rider 99.99% sikh women don't wear turban>>

ALL women, irrespective of color, creed or religion must wear helmet while driving


death doesnot ask you your religion and nor does it give preferential treatment


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<Please also tell me about what sikh women should do when they driving 2 wheelers or as pillion rider 99.99% sikh women don't wear turban>>
> 
> ALL women, irrespective of color, creed or religion must wear helmet while driving
> 
> ...



well then amritdhari women will even stop driving 2 wheelers


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<SGGS is pure spirtuality.Also many people manipulate quote's from sggs to prove their points.I think you very well know that apart from guru granth we also have concept of panth to take decisions and the whole panth is is unamously agree with it that sikhs should keep uncut hair.>>>>

 i am not contesting uncut hair, i do accept that majority of sikhs feel hair are part of the showing your commitment to sikhi and its their wish. i am asking this "no topi" logic. please donot mix hair with helmets.

<<<Today you are advoctaing helmets what's next Not allowing turbaned sikhs to serve in army because of safety purpose and even I heard that some airplane's also require pilot's to become clean shaven.>>

armies around the world allow turbans and it has to be specific, just like the army dress. so this is a weak reasoning line. Armies will never allow patkas.

Airplanes asking for clean shaven ppl?

i have heard this for first time

i know many bearded and turbaned sikhs who are fighter pilots

they tie their beard and ah yes they do wear helmet while inside the plane. as it contains your gas mask and communication devices.



<<<so in other words just ask sikhs to cut their hair and remove turbans directly.>>>


i never said that ppl should cut hair or remove turbans


the point here is "while driving" please wear a protective gears per rules- helmet or a proper turban.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<well then amritdhari women will even stop driving 2 wheelers>>

may i ask why?

just because someone is feeding them a  dogma of "no topi" ??


i am questioning the dogma of "no topi" and not the right to drive witha proper dastaar.

why don't they wear a  dastaar while driving?

jasleen ji menitioned her views too 

and i am not questioning just sikh women, i am even asking that irrespective of religion, people should follow certain rules.

as you mentioned in your posts earlier, times have changed, when these rehetnamas were made, there were no bikes.

these dogmas should change with changing time.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

> i am not contesting uncut hair, i do accept that majority of sikhs feel hair are part of the showing your commitment to sikhi and its their wish. i am asking this "no topi" logic. please donot mix hair with helmets.



Its upto panth and people I personally don't have any objection wearing helmet.



> armies around the world allow turbans and it has to be specific, just like the army dress. so this is a weak reasoning line. Armies will never allow patkas.
> 
> Airplanes asking for clean shaven ppl?
> 
> ...



Not at all armies all over world don't allow it US army don't allow any religious symbols

as far airplanes are concerned I read it on sikhnet  that some airlines or  army(not india) don't allow it because beard could catch fire because of combustion.so not so sure about it.


pilots


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<Not at all armies all over world don't allow it US army don't allow any religious symbols>>

important word is ANY

so i think there is no specific discrimination with sikhs

i have seen many commercial pilots outside india(UK, europe, canada, US) who have beards, though they might not be sikhs.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<Not at all armies all over world don't allow it US army don't allow any religious symbols>>
> 
> important word is ANY
> 
> ...



Amar ji

The main point is safety not armies I think sikhs should sacrifice some of their safety in some fields for wearing turban or sporting beards then why can't they do it while driving 
2 wheelers


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<Amar ji

The main point is safety not armies I think sikhs should sacrifice some of their safety in some fields for wearing turban or sporting beards then why can't they do it while driving 
2 wheelers>>

legally, turbans are considered safe, if properly worn

not PATKAS 

we come back to the discussion with you mixing, right to wear turban, keeping hair etc etc, which i have duly clarified as having nothing to do with right to drive 2 wheelers

but it all boils down to the stigma and dogma attached to "no topi"

why else would sikh women take out processions in chandigarh against helmets for women..?

funny coz a large majortiy were college going girls 

is there a hidden agenda behind "no topi" rehetnama?


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<well then amritdhari women will even stop driving 2 wheelers>>
> 
> may i ask why?
> 
> ...



orthodox sikhs will never agree with it.When even muslims are getting shariat laws of 7th century I don't think anyboduy has right to point out at others.

so don't bring this issue it will only put fire on separatist movements


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<Amar ji
> 
> The main point is safety not armies I think sikhs should sacrifice some of their safety in some fields for wearing turban or sporting beards then why can't they do it while driving
> 2 wheelers>>
> ...



I don't think so if yes then why others don't get the option of wearing turban or helmet even turban is pride of indiaan people


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<I don't think so if yes then why others don't get the option of wearing turban or helmet even turban is pride of indiaan people>>

i have seen haryanvi jaats in delhi driving bikes with pagris.( large ones)

they were not booked.

mind you, delhi is quite strict in helmet rule.


and yeah, for once lets recognize that india DOES consider diversity issues.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<I don't think so if yes then why others don't get the option of wearing turban or helmet even turban is pride of indiaan people>>
> 
> i have seen haryanvi jaats in delhi driving bikes with pagris.( large ones)
> 
> ...



I don't think police want to take panga with haryaanvi jaats as there plenty of them in police too


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

<<I don't think police want to take panga with haryaanvi jaats as there plenty of them in police too>>

LOL

why do you always bringing in segways into discussion?

i got suckered in on this one 

the question is-

is patka = pagg as defined for indian road laws??

it is not!!!

so patka wearers must wear helmet


why don't they want to wear helmet?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Feb 5, 2008)

We should design helmets for turban or patka wearers. Especially, patka wearers because they get 0 protection from it.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 5, 2008)

sinister ji proposed a design

as a budding entrepreneur bhagat singh ji

i have seen you looking for avenues of integrating sikhs with gaming world etc

a sikh helmet won't be a bad idea


----------



## BhagatSingh (Feb 5, 2008)

Sinister said:


> yeap your right 100%
> 
> ill just sit back and let mother nature deliver that message for me.
> 
> ...


not unless, you wear a huge dhumalla with wires and chakars around it like nihangs. :wink:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> sinister ji proposed a design
> 
> as a budding entrepreneur bhagat singh ji
> 
> ...


where have u seen me?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 5, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> well then amritdhari women will even stop driving 2 wheelers




why on earth would you say that?  helmets are not topis.  i have no problem wearing a helmet over a keski or bandana...   

you're making a really big assumption with that statement.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> the question is-
> 
> is patka = pagg as defined for indian road laws??
> 
> ...




agreed.  i have been told that the law states that the turban must be of 2 meters or more in length to qualify as a "turban" and therefore substitute for a helmet. 

i'm still searching for the exact wording of the law.

it's very simple, really, move the joodha to the back of the head, cover with a helmet.  no problem.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 5, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> There is phenominal change in India in 30-40 years .There were hardly any bikes for common man 30-40 years ago.I don't think sikhs ever played sports with wearing turban.
> Just look at picture's of milkha singh he participated in olympics with only wearing hanky
> on joora also look at picture's of  hockey team upto 70's you will find hardly any player who played hockey with turban.
> 
> Tell me how could one dive's with wearing a turban.Patka's has provided much support for sikhs or you would have found more and more sikhs cutting their hair.




we're talking about motorcycles, not olympics, hockey, or diving.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

Amar and jasleen just read this 

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Chandigarh Stories

New Delhi, September 30
The Supreme Court has exempted Sikh women from wearing helmets in the Union Territory of Chandigarh while driving two-wheelers and has modified the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order regarding traffic regulation in the city to a great extent making it more practicable. 

A Bench comprising Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr Justice P.P Naolekar said, “We direct that if any exemption is granted to any person, including Sikh women, from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to different states or areas or under any statutory rules, the same shall operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court that all persons, including women, shall wear helmets” in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

The Chandigarh Administration, while seeking modification of the High Court guidelines on traffic regulations in the city, had said under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 Sikh women were exempted from wearing helmets and the same should be allowed to them in Chandigarh.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

So nowhere it is mentioned that only turbanned sikhs are exempted from it


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> we're talking about motorcycles, not olympics, hockey, or diving.



And how do college going sikhs go to college by flying.In india many youngsters gp to college on bike's and play sports


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 5, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<I don't think police want to take panga with haryaanvi jaats as there plenty of them in police too>>
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...




Amar I don't think That anywhere it is mentioned in indian law that turbans are replacements of helmets.If you have seen some haryanavi jaats wearing turban and driving bike's then it does not make it legal.I just told you truth that sometime's police too do not harrass them.If you don't like it then its your wish.Please remember Its india not usa and uk


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 5, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> So nowhere it is mentioned that only turbanned sikhs are exempted from it



thanks for quoting the punjab code...  can you find the national law?  i don't think punjabi law would apply in the case in question, since it's in karnataka...


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 5, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> And how do college going sikhs go to college by flying.In india many youngsters gp to college on bike's and play sports




i see.  so that's their excuse for looking like a little kid or a bollywood joke?  well, i guess it's a free country.  kind of. 

how hard is it to tie a proper turban over that keski/parna/patka and then untie it when sports time comes?  

sorry, it's not relevant to the discussion, it's just a pet peeve of mine.  the fact that when bollywood makes jokes of sikhs, they're usually wearing a patka and full beard may be an influencing factor in my dislike for adults in patkas.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Feb 5, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> agreed. i have been told that the law states that the turban must be of 2 meters or more in length to qualify as a "turban" and therefore substitute for a helmet.
> 
> i'm still searching for the exact wording of the law.
> 
> it's very simple, really, move the joodha to the back of the head, cover with a helmet. no problem.


how far back exactly?


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 6, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> thanks for quoting the punjab code...  can you find the national law?  i don't think punjabi law would apply in the case in question, since it's in karnataka...



Jasleen The above judgement is of supreme court and it is applicable to all states of India not only to punjab and haryana

Head gear not mandatory for Sikh women:SC
3 Oct 2004, 0034 hrs IST,TNN
  Print	 Save	 EMail	 Write to Editor


Head gear not mandatory for Sikh women:SC-India-The Times of India

NEW DELHI: Sikh women can now drive or ride on the pillion of two-wheel autos without wearing helmets following the SC ruling that since they are exempt under law from such a regulation, they cannot be subjected to wear the protective head gear. 

*This significant judgment having impact on Delhi and other states wherever Sikh women are legally bound to wear helmets otherwise heft penalty is imposed on them, is a fall out of the Chandigarh administration’s appeal against a Punjab and Haryana HC verdict in 1998. *

The HC had made it mandatory for every Sikh woman to wear the helmets while driving a two-wheel motor cycle or scooter or riding on its pillion.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 6, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> how far back exactly?



i guess that depends on the design of the helmet, right?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 6, 2008)

so has your rant against indian stae subsided?

its funny if they relax rules for sikhs.

there is not basis for the reasoning used - "no topi" rule in sikhi.

still

is the boy a boy or was he thinking he is a sikh woman?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 6, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> so has your rant against indian stae subsided?
> 
> its funny if they relax rules for sikhs.



i'm going to assume this is directed at me, since you seem to be preoccupied with the idea that i'm "against" the "indian state". 

in this case, i believe that in a country that allows freedom to practice one's religion, it is necessary to allow turban wearing sikhs to wear their turbans on all occasions, even when riding motorcycles.  i support this right in any country.  sikhs in some parts of canada have won the right, as well as in the UK.  in the US, i don't even know if the battle has been fought, but if it is, i would support it here too.

i'm not "against" any state.  i'm supporting the rights of people to practice their religion.

sorry if i've mislead you in some way.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 6, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> so has your rant against indian stae subsided?
> 
> its funny if they relax rules for sikhs.
> 
> ...



Its funny how you are changing arguement first you were saying that its safety which turban could provide now you are saying that is the rule is applicable only for sikh women
so what safety chunni could provide to sikh women.I think its quite clear now that rule is
that sikhs are exempted from wearing helmets irrespective of whether they wear patka or turban or not anything.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 6, 2008)

lol

jasleen it was not against you

i should have put name 

KDS ji

i am not changing my argument

if someone is stubborn to not see reason, i am not going to break my head against stone to convince them


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 6, 2008)

jasleen ji

turban wearing sikhs are exempt all over india

even in army

its a few fool heads who want to prove patka=turban and beauty queens who want to feel wind in the air, who are using lame rehetnama excuses to defend their logic


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 7, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> lol
> 
> jasleen it was not against you
> 
> ...



Amar ji

Its quite clear that you don't have answer that's why you are saying that I am stubborn.

Here the issue is law and the law says That sikhs= no helmets not turbans = no helmets. so the boys case is justified.But you are bringing other issues like rehatnama,sikh history etc.

If you want sikhs should wear helmets go ahead submit your petetion to sikh organisations


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 7, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> jasleen ji
> 
> turban wearing sikhs are exempt all over india
> 
> ...




this is what i have heard from my husband and other friends in india.  i'm surprised at the idea that anyone who calls themselves "sikh" can ride without a helmet, even if they don't have a turban on.  i've never heard this before, and frankly, it doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 7, 2008)

<<Amar ji

Its quite clear that you don't have answer that's why you are saying that I am stubborn.

Here the issue is law and the law says That sikhs= no helmets not turbans = no helmets. so the boys case is justified.But you are bringing other issues like rehatnama,sikh history etc.

If you want sikhs should wear helmets go ahead submit your petetion to sikh organisations>>>

hanji kds ji

my answers will be useless...specially if the listener is not talking logically.

i accept defeat 


 just hope that the boys in patkas and girls on bikes reach home safely everyday


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 7, 2008)

where am I not talking logically please tell?


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 7, 2008)

i donot owe you explanation kds ji 

the discussion is closed from my end


----------



## BhagatSingh (Feb 7, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> i donot owe you explanation kds ji
> 
> the discussion is closed from my end


C'mon people don't do that! If someone makes a mistake then let them know! Please!
They can't fix it until they know exactly where they are wrong.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 7, 2008)

<<C'mon people don't do that! If someone makes a mistake then let them know! Please!
They can't fix it until they know exactly where they are wrong.>>



i hope the lessons are not learnt the harsh way


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 7, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> i donot owe you explanation kds ji
> 
> the discussion is closed from my end



You have to explain it This is public forum you cannot write statements and then say that you don't have to explain them.


----------



## Sherab (Feb 7, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> You have to explain it This is public forum you cannot write statements and then say that you don't have to explain them.


Agreed... if you don't want to explain why someone is wrong (Amar-ji), then don't say something which you're not going to explain... Maybe this should be a new forum rule


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 7, 2008)

<<Agreed... if you don't want to explain why someone is wrong (Amar-ji), then don't say something which you're not going to explain... >>

if someone chooses to read the last 6 pages of my logic which was turned blind eye by the highly knowledgeable friend, then i don't think anyone would ask me to explain my comments




a wink doesn't explain, it only complicates


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 7, 2008)

<<You have to explain it This is public forum you cannot write statements and then say that you don't have to explain them.>>

yeah

this is a public forum...

and i CHOOSE not to debate this topic as it has moved BEYOND the realm of my ABILITY to stoop to entertain illogical reasoning 

hence i ACCEPT my FAILURE to indulge in any ILLOGICAL discussiosn


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 9, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<You have to explain it This is public forum you cannot write statements and then say that you don't have to explain them.>>
> 
> yeah
> 
> ...



You again and and again are calling this discussion illogical but the fact you yourself are not understanding point

Here the point is that laws says sikh = exempted from wearing helmets that's why sikh women are exempted.But you are again saying that that only turbaned people are exempted from wearing helmets while I don't think there is any law that state's that turbans are replacement of helmets

If you want that patka wearing sikhs,sikh girls should wear helmets then go ahead and ask them It has nothing to do with this discusion.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 9, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> I don't think there is any law that state's that turbans are replacement of helmets
> .



i'd really like to see the law itself.  where can one find indian laws online so we can get a real answer to this question?


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 9, 2008)

traffic rules are different in different states but supreme court judge ment is applicable to all states

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Chandigarh Stories
Exempt Sikh women from wearing helmets 

As per rules, Sikhs wearing turbans are exempted from wearing helmets . Any other person from another community who wears a turban is not exempted. That means the turban is not considered a safe headgear but is taken as identity of a Sikh. Therefore, Sikhs are exempted from wearing helmets due to their religion. As such their wives and children belonging to the same community should also be exempted. The only problem is that the authorities do not understand the correct rules.

The point to note is that nowhere in the rule women and children are mentioned. This rule cannot be applied on them. In fact women and children are not mentioned because the above rule deals with religion and not with persons.

Lt Col H S Sambi

The above news is of time when sikh women were fighting battle for not wearing helmets
and supreme court's judgement is in favour of sikh women so its clear from above news that turbans are not replacement of helmets but a sidentity
SAS Nagar


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 9, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> traffic rules are different in different states but supreme court judge ment is applicable to all states
> 
> The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Chandigarh Stories
> Exempt Sikh women from wearing helmets
> ...



so what i see is that a man wearing a TURBAN is exempted from the helmet law.  not a patka.  correct?  

the later law which allows amritdhari women to ride motorcycles wearing their "traditional headgear" (whatever that may be) does not apply to men and doesn't make patkas legal.

thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 9, 2008)

*Helmet-less driving: challaning from today 
           Tribune News Service         *​Ludhiana, December 1
Following the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding challaning people riding two-wheelers and pillion and orders for its strict compliance issued to all district police chiefs by ADGP (Security) A.P. Bhatnagar, the Ludhiana police today announced to start the challaning process from tomorrow morning.
Four-wheelers with tinted glasses and supporting black films would also be challaned from tomorrow. 
As per the new directions, the vehicle should fulfil the minimum visibility criteria prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
The Sikhs who do not wear a turban, and women, who do not support the traditional headgear worn by amritdhari Sikh women, would have to be specifically beware of the challaning process.
Women, whether Sikh or others who cover their heads with dupattas, would also be challaned this time. 
Earlier, they were being exempted as Sikh organisations had protested against the challaning move arguing that it amounted to hurting their religious sentiments. 
*The Sikh men, who wear a parna or safa (small turban) or  patka  only, would also be challaned under the new directions.*


The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 9, 2008)

the revised law for women (in Chandigarh and punjab)


*           No helmet for Sikh women in city 
SC modifies HC order
 S S Negi
          Legal Correspondent            *​ New Delhi, September 30
 The Supreme Court has exempted Sikh women from wearing helmets in the Union Territory of Chandigarh while driving two-wheelers and has modified the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order regarding traffic regulation in the city to a great extent making it more practicable. 
A Bench comprising Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr Justice P.P Naolekar said, “We direct that if any exemption is granted to any person, including Sikh women, from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to different states or areas or under any statutory rules, the same shall operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court that all persons, including women, shall wear helmets” in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The Chandigarh Administration, while seeking modification of the High Court guidelines on traffic regulations in the city, had said under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 Sikh women were exempted from wearing helmets and the same should be allowed to them in Chandigarh.


http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041001/cth1.htm




there is no mention of a change in status for men, meaning that the old law stating that only turban wearing sikhs are exempt from helmet rules would still apply, correct?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 9, 2008)

Laws - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 129

*129. Wearing of protective headgear.*
              Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear *1*[protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards]:

 Provided that the provisions of this sections shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place,* wearing a turban*

  Provided further that the State Government may, by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think fit.

  Explanation.-"Protective headgear" means a helmet which,-

  (a) by virtue of its shape, material and construction, could reasonably be expected to afford to the person driving or riding on a motor cycle a degree or protection from injury in the event of an accident; and

    (b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 11, 2008)

Thanks for providing motor vehicle act.But read it carefully it states that a sikh man is not required to wear turban It means law does not even recognisies that sikh women are also wearing turban.I think after the supreme court judgement for sikh women it become's clear that supreme court accepted it that not wearing helmet is part of sikh religion.also some states also make it mandatory for children as pillion riders to wear helmets

So if a sikh women is not required to wear helmet
sikh children who wears patka are not required to wear helmets as pillion rider

Then why to force sikh boys who drive 2 wheelers in patka

also turbans do not provide protection just read it

Bicycle Helmets and Turbans
One Canadian test lab tested a Sikh turban for impact characteristics, and found that they probably would not provide much impact protection, certainly not enough to approach the performance of a helmet meeting any of the national or international bicycle helmet standards. Turbans may vary according to regional styles, and can differ considerably in size, shape, density and other characteristics, so it would be difficult to design a helmet to fit over or under them. A turban-shaped helmet is probably not a viable option even if it were acceptable to Sikhs, because the Sikh turban is meticulously wound, and it would be difficult for a turban wearer to remove their turban, ride in the helmet, and rewind the turban after the ride. Winding a turban over a helmet would eliminate ventilation and result in a very large headgear, while still requiring that the normal turban be taken off to ride.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So whether a sikh wear patka or turban it doesn't matter


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 11, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Thanks for providing motor vehicle act.But read it carefully it states that a sikh man is not required to wear turban It means law does not even recognisies that sikh women are also wearing turban.I think after the supreme court judgement for sikh women it become's clear that supreme court accepted it that not wearing helmet is part of sikh religion.also some states also make it mandatory for children as pillion riders to wear helmets
> 
> So if a sikh women is not required to wear helmet
> sikh children who wears patka are not required to wear helmets as pillion rider
> ...





did you even read the posts???  it clearly says, and i highlighted it in red, that a sikh who is not wearing a helmet must be wearing a turban.   it specifically says in the first article that boys in patkas WILL GET TICKETS.  

the fact that women are for some reason allowed to ride without turbans OR helmets is absurd and has nothing to do with the law for sikh men, as the amendment for women ONLY applies to women.

so yes, it does indeed matter whether it is a patka or turban.

please read over it again, especially the highlighted parts and see if you might agree?


----------



## Sikh80 (Feb 11, 2008)

I am not much into the background but the law quoted should not beOf centre but the respective state.Like you have federal law and the state law. We ,in India,  have respective state laws in consonance wit the federal law.


May be or may be not there is some difference.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 11, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> I am not much into the background but the law quoted should not beOf centre but the respective state.Like you have federal law and the state law. We ,in India,  have respective state laws in consonance wit the federal law.
> 
> 
> May be or may be not there is some difference.



i was under the impression that the discussion was only regarding the national law...  state laws may be more restrictive.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 11, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> did you even read the posts???  it clearly says, and i highlighted it in red, that a sikh who is not wearing a helmet must be wearing a turban.   it specifically says in the first article that boys in patkas WILL GET TICKETS.
> 
> the fact that women are for some reason allowed to ride without turbans OR helmets is absurd and has nothing to do with the law for sikh men, as the amendment for women ONLY applies to women.
> 
> ...



Jasleen supreme court or any other court does not make law It only interpret it.That hy supreme court made judgement in favour of sikh women because it is not the issue of safety but religious sentiments.

Also what about sikh children who sits as pillion rider they obviously wear patka and they are exepmted from it.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 11, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Jasleen supreme court or any other court does not make law It only interpret it.That hy supreme court made judgement in favour of sikh women because it is not the issue of safety but religious sentiments.
> 
> Also what about sikh children who sits as pillion rider they obviously wear patka and they are exepmted from it.




the court's judgement doesn't say anything about patkas.  it doesn't say anything about boys or men.  it only says sikh women don't need to wear helmets.

the LAW says sikh men who are wearing turbans do not have to wear helmets.

until the court rules that sikh men may ride without helmets or turbans, i do not think the ruling about women would apply.

please correct me if the ruling applies to anyone other than sikh women.


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 11, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> the court's judgement doesn't say anything about patkas.  it doesn't say anything about boys or men.  it only says sikh women don't need to wear helmets.
> 
> the LAW says sikh men who are wearing turbans do not have to wear helmets.
> 
> ...



Well the ground level situation in delhi,haryana ,punjab is that plenty of sikh boys are driving 2 wheelers wearing patka's and police is not stopping them.This is 1st case so lets see what will be the outcome.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 11, 2008)

a debate has four components:

1. incidents or observations
2. facts
3. opinions or interpretations
4. Logic


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 11, 2008)

<<i was under the impression that the discussion was only regarding the national law... state laws may be more restrictive.>>

jasleen ji

there is a national law for motor vehicles, that you quoted.
the states equivalents of DMVs make their own rules but they cannot over ride any national law.


 i am still out of this debate as not all four components of a debate are being used.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 12, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> <<i was under the impression that the discussion was only regarding the national law... state laws may be more restrictive.>>
> 
> jasleen ji
> 
> ...



i appologize, i'm not as well educated as most of the members here.  please feel free to add the missing components to the "debate" if you wish.  i was only trying to understand the facts.   i'm sorry i couldn't contribute more.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Feb 12, 2008)

lol

jasleen

i think i need to revisit my english 

i meant to state that your post contained the law which is a national "act" and it cannot be overruled by any state motor rule

its different from US, where state DMV make their rules.

 no one can add all four components to the debate, but logic is the cornerstone.


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Feb 13, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> lol
> 
> jasleen
> 
> ...



i see.  i was basing the assumption about state rules on something KDS said.  i do not understand the indian legal system very well.  my apologies.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 25, 2008)

People, I am going to design a helmet for Sikhs. I need info on how helmets are designed, their shape, materials, etc. 
I am thinking that for a Dhumalla, the helmet will be sort of donut shaped and will cover the forehead and the back of the head.
I don't know how a helmet would work for a patialla shahi turban?! 
Perhaps, a small helmet could be worn inside the turban??


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 25, 2008)

BhagatSingh said:


> People, I am going to design a helmet for Sikhs. I need info on how helmets are designed, their shape, materials, etc.
> I am thinking that for a Dhumalla, the helmet will be sort of donut shaped and will cover the forehead and the back of the head.
> I don't know how a helmet would work for a patialla shahi turban?!
> Perhaps, a small helmet could be worn inside the turban??




lol!  i think the turban has to be under the helmet...  otherwise those who wear keski as kakkar will not be able to use it.

i would design for a keski or parna, "choti dastaar", not for some big dumalla...  

here are samples of the highest (voluntary) standard for helmet construction for all types of vehicles in the US:

Snell Helmet Safety Standards

good luck on your endeavor, this is something i'd support.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 25, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> lol!  i think the turban has to be under the helmet...  otherwise those who wear keski as kakkar will not be able to use it.
> 
> i would design for a keski or parna, "choti dastaar", not for some big dumalla...
> 
> ...


Thank you. :}{}{}:
It would help if I had pictures of those dastaars you talk about. Small keski, etc


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Mar 26, 2008)

how abt an adjustable helmet.

don't know if it feasible, but just think of a rose bud or those flowers that close their petals.

 the base band can be locked on the place where the turban ends and the flexible metal "petals can be locked up on the top.

so depending on the turban size, person can adjust the helmet size


----------



## pk70 (Mar 26, 2008)

I stand with all SPN fellows who are saying either wear turban or helmet. Calling patka a dastar is laughable. The law that states" wear helmet" is designed for safety only. Why patka issue is brought any way?


----------



## Archived_Member1 (Mar 26, 2008)

pk70 said:


> Calling patka a dastar is laughable. The law that states" wear helmet" is designed for safety only. Why patka issue is brought any way?




the original post featured a photograph of a Sikh man in a patka, who felt he had been harassed for not wearing a helmet.  he felt that as a Sikh, he should be exempt from helmet laws, even if he's not wearing a turban.

that's where the issue came up.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 27, 2008)

amarsanghera said:


> how abt an adjustable helmet.
> 
> don't know if it feasible, but just think of a rose bud or those flowers that close their petals.
> 
> ...


genius! Although, i have to see if it works on paper.

I ahve always tried to draw a sikh version of master chief (from halo), I couldn't figure out a way to incoporate a turban into his design. so this is difinetly going to be a challenge.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Mar 27, 2008)

jasleen_kaur said:


> the original post featured a photograph of a Sikh man in a patka, who felt he had been harassed for not wearing a helmet. he felt that as a Sikh, he should be exempt from helmet laws, even if he's not wearing a turban.
> 
> that's where the issue came up.


wow! that was stupid of him.:rofl!!:


----------



## Rani_5 (May 12, 2008)

Hi Amarsanghera

Please can I ask for interest, what "google" page you got this quote?:

"Sikh Hoay Sir Topi Tarey Saat Janam Kushti Hoay Mareh"

"A Sikh of the Guru, who wears a hat/cap (something other than a turban)
Will be reborn again 7 times in diseased lifeforms."

Rehatnama Bhai Prehlad Singh ji, p.65

Thank you,


----------

