Sikh Harrased For Not Wearing Helmet

[kds1980]

where am I not talking logically please tell?

 

[Archived_Member_19]

i donot owe you explanation kds ji

the discussion is closed from my end

 

[BhagatSingh]

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]

<<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]

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]

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]

<<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]

<<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]

<<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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.