British law exempts motorcyclists who wear “religious” hairstyles from helmets

A small plaque at the foot of a tree at the end of a dirt track leading from a car park near the Dorset countryside village of Clouds Hill marks the exact spot where one rainy Sunday in May 1935 Lawrence of Arabia jumped into the air on his motorcycle to avoid two cyclists he hadn't seen.

Oliver Thansan
Oliver Thansan
08 June 2023 Thursday 10:22
6 Reads
British law exempts motorcyclists who wear “religious” hairstyles from helmets

A small plaque at the foot of a tree at the end of a dirt track leading from a car park near the Dorset countryside village of Clouds Hill marks the exact spot where one rainy Sunday in May 1935 Lawrence of Arabia jumped into the air on his motorcycle to avoid two cyclists he hadn't seen. An accident that not only resulted in the death of a legend -that of the English friend of the Arabs who helped mobilize their revolt in World War I, immortalized in the cinema by Peter O'Toole-, but also opened the doors to the introduction of the mandatory helmet.

California is usually ahead of the world in many things, but in this it lags behind. Only now has its Senate approved a change in legislation (now pending what the state Assembly decides) that exempts motorcyclists who wear “religious or cultural hairstyles”, such as a turban, from helmets, a demand by the Sikh community to “ being able to practice their beliefs” at the controls of their two-wheeled Honda, Toyota or BMW without fear of being pulled over by the sheriff and receiving a $250 fine. By contrast, that exemption has existed in the UK since 1976, and for quite some time in India and Canada as well.

In fact, the British are considerably ahead of the Californians, because they have started selling special motorcycle helmets for Sikhs, roomy enough to put on turbans of up to ten meters of rolled fabric, but at the same time resistant to the impact, with several layers of protection (foam and chain mail). They are marketed as an object that "makes safety and religious needs compatible for the first time for motorcyclists" and are inspired by those worn by the warriors of that community to go into combat.

The issue is not without controversy, everywhere, and positions vary among those who prioritize freedoms and security. In the UK, doctors have expressed skepticism about this "special helmet", and are in favor of everyone wearing a conventional one "that has been shown to save lives", without exemptions for cultural, religious or other reasons. And the Automobile Club of Southern California is opposed to modifying the Highway Code to meet the demands of the Sikhs.

In Great Britain, it is a very important community, made up of 520,000 people with considerable purchasing power (87% own their homes, two thirds have an annual income of more than 50,000 euros, and only 1% claim subsidies in a country where five million do it). The first contact between Anglos and Sikhs dates back to the 19th century in the Punjab, and the first permanent resident of that religion in London was Maharaja Duleep Singh, expelled from his kingdom by the East India Company and who then went into exile in the upscale Kensington neighborhood. That influence reaches politics (there are numerous lords), cooking, language and cricket, and proof of this is that they achieved the exemption to wear the helmet a long time ago, when California only raised it.

Motorcycle accidents make up twenty percent of the total on British streets and highways, with 285 deaths and 14,690 injuries last year, which would be many more if it were not for the protection offered by a helmet (statistics indicate that it prevents damage severe brain injuries in 69% of cases). Lawrence of Arabia was not wearing it-very few were then-when he sped around a curve on the Cloud Hills to Bovington road (it no longer exists due to a rerouting) that Sunday morning of the 35th, and in the middle of the In the rain, two cyclists emerged that he had to avoid. He was thrown into the air and hit the asphalt headfirst, dying of his injuries six days later.

In 1973 the House of Commons passed the law making it compulsory for everyone, and the Sikhs got their exemption three years later. They are the object of a certain envy. Most appeals to fines for not wearing a helmet are from people who claim they paid a small fortune to get a perm at the salon to go to a wedding or party, and didn't want to ruin their hair. But the authorities remain firm: only those who wear “religious or cultural” hairstyles are exempt, the others do not count. Neither here nor in California