Turban Vs Helmet Research Paper

Millions of people all over the United States choose motorcycles over automobiles for the thrill, speed, and high performance capabilities. On the other hand, motorcycles are not at all the safest way of transportation. Motorcycles do not provide the passenger with the outer protection that cars provide, therefore, when one crashes, the results are usually much more serious. Injuries to the head are responsible for 76% of fatalities when dealing with motorcycle crashes many of which could have been prevented had the rider been wearing a helmet. For this reason, many states have adopted the motorcycle helmet law. The law states that every passengers must wear a helmet at all times when riding on a motorcycle. This law has created a great deal of controversy. One side supports the law, believing that it protects motorcyclists from danger and saves the economy a great deal of money. The other side argues that the law is unconstitutional and it violates our right to freedom. However, statistics show overwhelming support in favor of the motorcycle helmet law. Although wearing helmets cannot prevent motorcycle crashes, they can greatly reduce the number of deaths caused by head injury as well as lowering taxes, insurance rates, and health care costs. Therefore, the helmet law should be put into effect in every state across the United States.

Reading through the essay I felt that Bob Smietana the author was speaking as a reporter. Rather than offering his own opinion he throughout the essay presented opinions from both sides of the arguement.

The laws about motorcycle helmets have been in an unsteady flux since 1967. Michael French and Jenny Homer, published authors in the American Journal of Public Health, report that congress made the decision to stop withholding highway construction funding from states without universal helmet laws in 1967 (Homer 415). This congressional movement was the perfect opportunity for motorcycle rights groups to protest the laws about motorcycle helmets. Kimberly Auman and her co-authors published in the American Journal of Public Health that these protests resulted in twenty-eight states repealing or changing their helmet laws in the years from 1975 to 1983 (Auman 1352). Currently, not even half of the states require all riders to wear helmets. Only twenty states have universal helmet laws that require all riders to wear helmets. Twenty-seven states currently require only some riders and passengers (usually younger than 16, 18, or 21), or newly licensed riders to wear helme...

In this instance the government regulation to keep the school safe is interfering with Rajiv’s fundamental freedom of conscience and religion stated in section 2 of the charter, and it is doing so unjustly. While the information given in the story was scarce, there were no reports of a Kirpan being used a weapon before, any problems with weapons, or any attempt to find an alternative instead of disallowing the Kirpan completely . In the case Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the decision to prohibit the wearing of a Kirpan to be a violation of one’s fundamental freedom. This is important because a precedent has been set by the Supreme Court of Canada. After the Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys case the court decided that if that given the premise a student has not used the Kirpan as a weapon before, and sincerely believes that a metal Kirpan is essential in paying respects to their religion, it is within their rights to wear one. This important as it proves that the government regulation seized Rajiv’s Kir...

The most apparent human right issue is the freedom of expression, whether it is of cultural and/or religious affiliation, through the physical display of their identity. The ban is illegalizing government employees from wearing this physical specimen of religious identity, being tha...

a range of opinions and ideas on the matter. Some may argue it is the

I actually really enjoyed this article, it made me think of many people that I fell I

The reasoning used by the Supreme court judges are based by the Oakes test. The main and sufficient objective according to the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Commission scolaire was the school safety; however, the Supreme Court found that the limitation went beyond the initial and intended objective set out by the Supreme Court and the Commission scolaire (Canadian Human Rights Reporter, 203). Judges McLachlin, Bastarache, Binnie, Fish and Charron JJ. also said that prohibiting Gurbaj’s right to bear the kirpan has more deleterious effects than salutary because it infringes on his freedom of religion. In addition, factor such as school safety is already at risk since there are other objects in school that could be “used to commit violence acts

In this essay I am going to be deciding to what extent that I think

Did you have influences from other people to tell you to wear a head scarf?