I am often amazed at the claims that so-called experts make, even in a court of law. For example, the government of Ontario recently defended its policy that Sikhs riding motorcycles should wear helmets (not a requirement in BC or Manitoba) by claming that turbans would unravel in the breeze, thus posing a risk to other motorists.
 |
|
Born to be wild |
… the Crown declared that an expert it had hired proved that turbans unravel rapidly in 100 km/h winds. The Crown’s test had been carried out by a professional engineer who purchased a mannequin head, mounted it on a stick and then placed the assemblage in a wind tunnel. [Link]
<
p>Say what? Turbans unravel at 60 mph? Have they ever seen a Sardar riding a motorcycle? Or riding a roller coaster? Or even sticking his head out of a moving vehicle? The paag stays on tight my friend.
<
p>To test this claim, the plaintiff, Baljinder Badesha of Brampton (can you say that 10 times fast?), tried to replicate the study. He drove down the Cayuga Speedway at … gasp, 110 kmh. Did his turban unravel and flutter into the wind like a wayward plastic bag? Ummm … no. It was fit to be tied.
Mr. Hutchison [Baljinder Singh’s lawyer] was unable to find a documented case anywhere in the world where a Sikh motorcyclist’s turban had unravelled. Skeptical, he persuaded the OHRC to authorize its own test. After he confronted the Crown with the dramatically different test result, prosecutors conceded that their engineer had grossly miscalculated the force of the wind he had generated to batter the imitation head, Mr. Hutchison said.
In fact, the device had been subjected to a 300 km/h wind. [Link]
<
p>That’s right – they used 180 mph winds in their test, more of a gale than the stiff breeze you get at 60mph. And even so, I’m not entirely convinced. I’ll bet if they used a real person with a real turban going 180 mph, it might still stay on. But in any case, given that driving at 300 kmh is illegal, the point is moot.
<
p>So now the Crown is switching arguments. Instead of defending this policy in terms of the danger to others that turbans pose (those huge swooping turbans flying around the freeway, covering up windshields!) they’re arguing that helmetless motorcycle riders will cost the taxpayers more:
… its main argument is now based on increased costs to the health system, should helmetless Sikh motorcycle riders end up suffering head injuries. [Link]
<
p>The problem is that if you accept this argument, why are they allowing anybody to ride on a motorcycle at all, given that it’s far riskier than driving a car. In fact, they should only allow people to drive safe, slow, sober sedans like the Ambassador.
…a study … concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year.
The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would … [lead to] a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province’s annual health-care budget.
Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. “Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost,” he said. [Link]
<
p>I realize that Canada is not a very libertarian country, but where they draw the line between acceptable risk (riding a motorcycle vs. riding in a car) and unacceptable risk (riding a motorcycle with a turban vs. riding a motorcycle with a helmet) is clearly determined by social preferences rather than public health. You can’t be penny wise and pound foolish and then say you’re acting out of frugality, it wont wash.
i can understand concerns about carrying around knives, but this is pretty dumb. then again, as you said, it’s kanada.
so this is a dumb question, but can’t sikhs who wear the turban wear anything underneath it to absorb shocks if they do crash?
The crown has messed up its argument. The G&M editorial makes a better case. The law is there to protect adults from poor decisions.
hey should make helmets optional for all or make it mandatory [no exceptions]. I used to enjoy a sport where helmets were mandatory for the competitions. I preferred not to wear them in training and feel it improved my skills somewhat, a little bit of judo for handling falls helped as well. so I’m definitely not in favor of MHL.
btw – i may be wrong, but why are turbans being equated with kesh. a practising sikh may keep the kesh, but why does he need to wear a large turban. Why cant he tie a do-rag like the english spinner.
p.s. Canadians are not libertarian. it’s a nanny state.
See the need, fill the need!I think there might be a bussiness opportunity for an enterprising engineer to make Pagadi compatible helmets.
I was a bit unsure about this at first but the more i’ve read, the more I think believe the government should change the law to allow the exemption for the helmetless, be they sikh, sgnostic or atheist.
They should allow it but require special insurance to cover the additional health costs. The practical reality is that most who ride motorcycles (including me) wouldn’t dream of riding without a helmet; insurance companies (who already generally already hate covering motorcyclists in Canada) wouldn’t bother or would charge excessive premiums (another disincentive to go helmetless) and whoever still wants to go sans helmet after all of that can do so.
By the way, in the G&M article the guy is riding with zero protective gear in the winter. I feel bad for his kids.
wow i should proofread…or not stay up late
anyway, are there strict rules about the turbans look? i’ve seen different forms and always assumed the head just had to be covered (as a helmet does).
3 · Upbhransh said
Sorry to poo-poo you, but as someone who knows a thing about both motorcycle helmets and Sikh turbans (and all the attendant “respect” issues), I cannot conceive of any such possibility–not if you’re going to make a truly effective, full-face helmet. I suppose there’s a possibility that you might be able to come up with something comparable to the glorified-yarmulke brain buckets you see some Harley riders sporting, but those are just a cosmetic way to skirt the law–not real protection.
I think the real issue here is that the Canadian goborment has failed to have testing done by certifiable profesionals.
Surely this is an old problem that has been tackled before? Not to mention historical solutions. Did the Ontario government not read the literature before they started playing with their wind tunnel?
Also, would it be considered acceptable from a religious viewpoint to keep the long hair without the turban (i.e., tied up or knotted but not bunched up)? I’m not advocating it or anything, just thinking that if the physical turban is not required as much as the kesh itself, one could accommodate both the long hair and a helmet if desired.
I realize that Canada is not a very libertarian country
No,its a very PC country that bends over backwards to newcomers and there customs.
Knowing anything about Canada and the way it works, Mr.Badesha has a 99% chance of winning this case. None of the political parties here want to risk losing the sikh vote[which can affect the results of several elections for both MLA’s and MP’s in the Ontario area],so it would not surprise me to see politicans reach out to Mr.Badesha.
But…I cant imagine a turban protects against head injuries? If non-Sikhs are compelled to wear a helmet why shouldn’t Sikhs do it as well?
Interesting post!
Evidence of Sikhs wearing helmets in India and Britannia; this must be Canadian problem.
I agree with Meena, assuming there is a helmet law, I don’t see the argument here – everyone needs to wear a helmet.
Actually, in the other two countries turbans aren’t required for motorcycle riding at all
If you want to prevent head injuries, you should keep people off a motorcycle period. The cost-ben payoff from that is far far greater.
Helmets have interesting effects – they create a greater risk of neck injuries, they also create far more risky behavior on the parts of the drivers nearby (there was an interesting study showing this with bicycles, drivers rode far closer when the driver was wearing a helmet).
To ask the theological question – a plurality of observant Sikhs believe that they are religiously required to wear their turban and no helmet. The whys and wherefores of this get complicated to explain and for the purposes of the law are irrelevant. The point is that this is a sincere belief.
The next question is what are the costs of allowing such a belief? The point being made in this post is that once you’re thrown the barn door open by letting people choose to ride a motorcycle – which has huge costs associated – you can’t say that your decision to regulate a bit on the margins is due purely to rationality. It’s clearly a cultural line being drawn. Riding a motorcycle and associated risks are fine, but riding one without a helmet is not.
Wouldn’t it be OK if they wore the smaller Patka that Bhajji and Monty wear when they are fielding? The helmet could then easily fit over it. I ask this in earnestness as I know that Bhajji at least, is not very religious and wouldn’t care about having to wear a helmet or a Patka. Also, in most Junior Leagues (Cricket), it is mandatory to wear helmets when you are facing Fast Bowlers.
I don’t think such things should be legislated at all. Nobody should be required to wear a helmet. I believe Tamil Nadu rejected this law outright. There are some areas where grandmothers lay down the law and it works infinitely better than some sorry piece of legislation. Nobody’s really looking to get hit after all, and the young and invincible are reckless anyway.
As much as this is a very important topic, Can i say i love the picture! It’s brilliant!
Ennis:
I don’t ride a motorcycle, but I’m pretty sure that in my country helmets are required by law. And why should everybody else be required to wear a helmet when Sikhs are exempt? To you it may be a religious belief, but I and many other people don’t share it. Why should there be a double standard because you claim that your relgious beliefs mandate you to wear a turban? Anyone can go declaring that they have their own cultural practices which also exempt them from the law.
Why should helmets be required by law? Because they say it is slightly safer to ride with than without. However, given how unsafe motorcycle riding is, if you’re really concerned with safety, you should ban motorcycling. If you accept that people will take risks sensibly, then you should encourage but not mandate helmets.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is a motorcycle and automobile dealer. The law bans him from demonstrating the use of motorcycles at low speeds in his own dealership. That’s not about safety there.
Meena – your argument makes sense if you never allow any religious exemptions for anything. Perhaps the Dutch do that, but I doubt it. Christmas is a national holiday, no?
I thought a turban was a helmet.
Nothing can guarantee 100% safety. Using seatbelts and airbags have killed people too, but I daresay in the majority of cases they have saved more lives than when not used.
It is not often that somebody like Gary Busey says anything worth listening to, but here’s one instance:
I was wondering how the guy got his driver’s license if he didnt wear a helmet for the roadtest… well … it turns out, he did NOT need to go for a road test.
If this goes through it may impact the insurance company which currently assumes that all motorocycle drivers wear helmets because it’s the law (and is the smart thing to do).
for a crown body that is perpetually stretched for money and for resources, I feel the human rights commission should pick its battles. I know this is important for Badisha but really… if there is a case to be made for the insignificant bump to provincial healthcare costs, there is a parallel case to be made for the insignificant number of people who are being represented in this case [sikh motorcyclists who do not want to wear a helmet]. I am a little cheesed off at the HRC actually. In Ontario we got enough going on around native land rights, accessible transit for seniors and disabled etc. without needing to indulge this one guy.
Ennis — your first argument — “why should helmets be required by law?” is coming from the wrong place. Ontarians, as noted above, tend to be very nanny-statish. We’re not crazy about letting people take risks sensibly.
Your second argument — that since motorcycles are dangerous, any safety restrictions when riding motorcycles are useless — is also not sound. Driving is dangerous, but we require seatbelts. Swimming can be dangerous, but the government pays for lifeguards. Drawing a line is difficult and sometimes arbitrary at the margins, but we still draw the line.
Lastly, the defence’s argument that the line should be drawn based on the # of dead Sikhs is also no good. Under that rule, the Sikhs could ride without a helmet in Chicoutimi (noSikhs), but not in Brampton (lotsaSikhs). The better test would be he line should be based on the increased risk to the individual Sikh man from not wearing a helmet.
Anyway, in this particular case, an exemption for dealers demontrating bikes for sale would probably be the most accomodating, and least inflammatory, way to address the issue.
(Question for Ennis: Should Sikh children be allowed to ride a motorcylce without a helmet? Does the state have an interest in protecting minors? Are Sikh parents who let their kids ride motorcycles without helmets total morons…)
All these cases are just a preliminary lead up to the day a Sikh child asks to play hockey without a helmet. Then we’ll have a real national crisis.
where on earth did you find such a fitting picture for this story? how does one even begin to find a picture of a guy in a turban on a kick ass motorcycle and on top of all of that… he looks really bad ass
i’m in awe.
All these cases are just a preliminary lead up to the day a Sikh child asks to play hockey without a helmet. Then we’ll have a real national crisis.
I could only image the backlash for that.
ha! good point. though that sport could do with mandating some protective gear already.
Ok, so for those asking re: whether the turban is required for men, please refer to (an admittedly imperfect translation) of the panthic Rehit Maryada (Article IV.t). The turban is required. In terms of what is considered “acceptable attire” — the patka is typically only worn when men are playing contact sports (e.g. cricket, field hockey), or when they’re at home, or if they are boys (literally non-adult men). I have a feeling its acceptability for certain sports is because of the fear that a turban would be knocked off one’s head (thus not covering one’s hair) more than for any “safety” considerations. For most Sikhs, the turban is seen as required, along with kes. They are not considered equivalent, but are considered related and important. There are a plethora of historical arguments for why the turban is required, but I don’t really care to get into that.
Meena, within the U.S. laws generally apply unless they are burdensome from a religious standpoint or for a religious group. Once a secular exemption is made, a religious exemption is almost always permissible as well. This comes from our concept of free exercise of religion (which is certainly different from most of the concepts of “secular” law in continental European countries). I don’t know if Canada has a similar concept — it sounds like their legal system evolved in a much closer way to the UK system –, but I think they’re going to have a hard time defending this policy.
To reiterate, the requirements for children differ slightly from adults. The helmet for hockey argument is not legit, imo.
Can a patka be worn under a generic motorcycle helmet? And would this allow both sides in this case to get what they want?
In the US, Sikhs with turbans don’t need to wear helmets on construction sites. They can get a pass from OSHA and seems like the same excemption could be made for motorcycle helmets.
Meena, within the U.S. laws generally apply unless they are burdensome from a religious standpoint or for a religious group. Once a secular exemption is made, a religious exemption is almost always permissible as well. This comes from our concept of free exercise of religion (which is certainly different from most of the concepts of “secular” law in continental European countries). I don’t know if Canada has a similar concept — it sounds like their legal system evolved in a much closer way to the UK system –, but I think they’re going to have a hard time defending this policy.
Under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, religious groups can get an exception from laws which burden religious exercise unless the State has a compelling interest in enforcing the law. The current conservative Roberts Supreme Court of course takes a rather narrow/restrictive view of the state ‘compelling interest’ and last year in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, the US Supreme Court stopped the Federal Government from enforcing the laws on a hallucinogenic tea (a controlled substance) which was used by a Native American sect in religious ceremonies.
One could argue that the state has a compelling interest in enforcing safety laws of wearing a helmet. I disagree with Ennis that if the state has the option of doing away with the risk altogether but decides to lower the risk instead of eliminating the risk then the state somehow should not be allowed to lower the risk.
A patka can’t be worn underneath a regular helment. It won’t fit properly but if anyone wants to start a business that makes a helment that looks like a turban, you might be able to make some money.
From what I’ve seen, the little league brampton hockey teams seem to have no problem with helmets, and teams are often majority sikh. sikh kids don’t have to wear those large turbans that adults wear.
There are a lot of activities that cause death, injury and cost the people and government money to provide care for people indulging in these activities. Take smoking for one thing. Being in a unique position of having worn a turban, having ridden (is that a word?) a motorcycle while wearing a turban, without a turban and a helmet and being an emergency physician, I will say this: The helmet best protects one at low speeds. All the high speed wrecks-helmet or not-all dead OR going to a ventilator farm for the rest of their life. Low to moderate speeds is where helmets are best; one might argue that a properly tied turban is fairly good at this speed although clearly not as good as a helmet. In the end however, we must make our own decisions. The sheer exhilaration of riding without a helmet cannot be unexplained to the non-rider. I am not advocating to remove helmets altogether, just that individuals need to make their own decisions.
The ‘cost to the state’ arguement is one I used to think of when I first started practicing emergency medicine. Over time, I have come to realize that the money spent on motorcycle wrecks pales in comparison to the money spent on ICU care for 90 year olds in vegetative states. If you were not aware, 3/4th ( some sources say 90%) of the US health care dollar is spent during the last six months a persons life-prolonging inevitable death with tubefeeds and countless hours of ICU care. Let the Khalsa ride with their turbans on-adds an interesting sight on the highway.
Oh, and the same ‘crown’ had no problem letting the Sikhs have their heads blown off wearing turbans during the great wars!
Ennis are you actually saying that riding without a helmet is only slightly safer than riding without? Besides being a ridiculous angle from which to argue this, do you have any evidence?
Also, this debate isn’t happening within a vacuum. We have public healthcare and a policy of official multiculturalism. Not to channel pearljamfan, but a person asking for a religious exemption that will result in higher costs to the system will create public tension. The debate about reasonable accomodation has reached uncomfortable levels in Quebec, this case risks inflaming the same thing in Ontario. Ikram’s point about setting boundaries, even if they seem arbitrary at the margins, is a good one.
Camille, thank you for the explanation. I feel this is one of those wedge issues that might be debated among sikhs on whether they want to observe the word or the spirit of the edict. i believe the latter is more important – in that a large turban is not essential headgear because that would be excessively restrictive in contemporary lifestyles and living. For instance, it would automatically disadvantage keshdhari sikhs from active participation in competitive swimming. A rather facetious application of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms [see excerpts below] might have someone challenge competitive swimmers for their streamlining because it unfairly disadvantages sikh youth.
while I support immigrant/minority rights and am vocal about it at the grassroots level, this issue is taking up more bandwidht than it is worth. there are bigger issues to fight over.
The best resolution i see is that they pull up on the law that mandates helmets for all and that necessitates a change to insurance rules. let the meatheads look after themselves.
There was a Sikh who played college football at Oreagon and he wore a helmet, so you dont have to worry about that. By the way what is “hockey” anyway? Is that the one where you slide a disk and people in front of that disk use brooms to clean the ice so that the disk doesnt get any dirt on it?
People always use the “Sikhs get special treatment” phrase when it comes to issue’s like this, but all you have to do is wear a turban and get spit on every other day, get dirty looks from almost everyone, and have people physically attack you on a weekly bases and you to can have the “special treatment”.
I gave evidence about the cost to the state being only slightly different, even if you accept the Crown’s assumptions about the danger.
I also raised questions about the law of unintended consequences. SUVs are safer in a passive crash than are small cars. However, it is not always safer to drive an SUV b/c small cars can react and maneuver faster. And it is most definitely not the case that if we all drove SUVs that we would all be safer.
It turns out that wearing a bicycle helmet puts you at greater risk because drivers will behave more aggressively(maybe I should put this in the main post):
As such, I’d like to see a holistic analysis of whether wearing a helmet is net safer for motorcyclists. I haven’t seen one yet.
As you well know, the issue is always a matter of trade off between personal liberty and cost to the state. My point is simply this – it is inconsistent and hypocritical for the state to argue that their actions are driven by a desire to reduce public cost given these two claims: 1. Banning motorcycle riding, even though it would save a huge amount of money, is not worth the reduction in personal freedom 2. Banning motorcycle riding without a helmet, even though it would save a tiny amount of money, is definitely worth a reduction in personal freedom.
The reason why they can argue for #2 and not #1 is not about protecting the public purse, but rather is about whose freedom gets restricted.
The above might be relevant in the Canadian context (I dont know the Canadian laws) if the argument is about what it will cost the state.
In the US, they dont have to make a cost to the state argument. Public safety and health is a cause onto itself.
In the US context, the state will have to meet the burden of showing that a helmet versus a patka does indeed lead to a lowering of the severity of injuries and the state interest in promoting safety will then have to be balanced with the religious interest of Sikhs in wearing a turban.
My point is simply this – it is inconsistent and hypocritical for the state to argue that their actions are driven by a desire to reduce public cost given these two claims
Yes and the state can also argue that the reason is not due to reduction in costs but public safety.
Ennis — Here is a link to the Canada Safety Council.
“In the late 1990s, Kentucky and Louisiana repealed their universal motorcycle helmet laws. Statewide observational surveys showed that helmet use decreased from nearly full compliance to the 50 per cent range without the laws. The rate of motorcyclist fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased by 37 per cent in Kentucky and 75 per cent in Louisiana.”
The issue seems to be unsettled — many US states repealed their helmet laws in the 90s. But Americans are more freedom-minded than Canadians.
Camille:
This is similar in my country as well. I’d like to add, off-topically, that you can’t generalise about “continental Europe” – there are a dozen different countries with a dozen different laws and cultural practices. For instance although in most countries you’re an adult at 18 Sweden(I don’t know about the rest of Scandinavia) is an exception. To get back to the topic at hand, but here you can get religious exemptions – up to a certain point. I’m sure the turban vs helmet thing won’t fly though. The government is looking to ban burkas in public and religious attire in public office as well. I’d say the British system is much more tolerant of religious differences actually.
Ennis – you’re picking wrong analogies. Driving a car is dangerous as well, does that mean that wearing a seatbelt shouldn’t be mandatory? After all, plenty of people die in road accidents while wearing a seatbelt. (They’re obligatory in my country as well – even in the backseat. You’ll get a fine if they catch you without wearing one.)
The government doesn’t lose its right to legislate aspects of behaviour because it hasn’t chosen to outlaw the behaviour itself. Think about the logical consequences of what would happen if that were in fact the case. The government allows people to smoke–does that mean it can’t regulate substances that are not allowed in cigarettes? The government allows people to skydive–does that mean it can’t stipulate operational standards that the parachutes have to meet? The government is more than allowed to legislate activities that mitigate the risk of the behaviour, while ensuring that it does not infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights(yes, Canada has a constitution as well, albeit very different in form and content from the U.S.) or other statutory rights which have primacy. And yes, costs most definitely factor into that risk mitigation analysis. If, to use the skydiving example, the public costs associated with skydiving can do down due to the use of certain equipment, then that information is relevant and germane in deciding whether or not to require such equipment.
In this particular context, the question to ask is the rationale behind the law–is it designed to discriminate against Sikhs? In this case I think it would be fairly easy to prove that the government, responding to a great deal of lobbying from concerned groups (including medical professionals) and after reviewing studies felt that requiring people to wear a helmet was a risk mitigation issue and this is a law of general application. The next question is whether it serves its purpose. Again, I think the government would be able to show that there is general widespread support for the idea that the wearing of a helmet mitigates against (not eliminates) some of the risks associated with riding a motor-cycle. The third question is whether the law has the effect of discriminating against Sikhs. I’m going to assume for the purposes that it does (I believe the government has made a good point in stating that the claimant can need not participate in this activity, but if he chooses to, then he is subject to the same laws as everyone else. You do not need to become a taxi-cab driver, but if you do, you better be sure that you aren’t going to refuse to pick up female passengers because your sincerely held interpretation of your religion tells you be “modest”). The question then becomes whether the discrimination is justified–the assessment and balancing of risks v. rewards. If the claimant can show that his turban is as protective as a helmet he has a good chance. If he can’t then it becomes more complicated–does the state have a duty to accomodate this in light of its objectives of public safety and risk mitigation and is reasonable accomodation (e.g. the burkini) even possible?
Again, a sincerely held religious belief is not enough–the context, including the nature of the activities, the purpose of the law in question and the impact of the claimed discrimination and possible remedies need to be assessed and weighed-one might sincerely believe that God believes a woman should never have authority over a man but lo and behold, I’m pretty sure that these days one will be held for contempt if they give that reason for not obeying the female U.S. judge.
The risks that the government thinks are acceptable and the ones they think are not are highly culturally determined. That they wish to allow smoking while banning motorcycle riding without a helmet again shows they’re more interested in protecting the liberties of your “average” (i.e. non-Sikh) Canadian than they are in optimizing health spending.
khoof, the spirit of the edict is to wear a turban. Even a turban that is “conservative” in size (and turban != patka) is not going to fit under a motorcycle helmet. As I mentioned, folks have different understandings of how this plays out in the world of sports, but not really in other avenues of life. I understand your point, but it gets into the larger debates around whether the Sikh Rehit Maryada should be refined, amended, etc., which is a bit off-topic, I think.
Meena, I understand. I was just trying to speak to common concepts of “secularism,” which differ greatly both among continental European nations and between Europe (taken as a whole) and the U.S. I understand that the region is diverse and that it may not be instructive to paint it with broad brush strokes.
The risks that ANY government thinks are acceptable vs. non-acceptable are always cultural (especially in a democracy) as are the underlying laws. I don’t think its a bad thing at all–I would hope that the government/laws would reflect the culture of the governed, which in this case includes a recognition that “reasonable accomodation” of religious beliefs is desired. The question is whether it is reasonable to ask for such accomodation in this particular context and whether the claimant also has other options that will allow the claimant to meet the spirit of the legislation, so I guess we’ll see and hear various arguments (some of which may not have strong supporting evidence and will be weighed accordingly). I guess we’ll find out. I will say that its my understanding that public safety risk mitigation is usually seen as a strong reason for supporting a law.
One’s religion does not give one an automatic pass do whatever one wants.
Ennis wrote:
The risks that the government thinks are acceptable and the ones they think are not are highly culturally determined
Yep. So what. France allows the sale of dangerous unpasteurized cheese. Ontario doesn’t. Our Ontario culture doesn’t embrace cheese-eating with the same gusto. It limits the freedom of stink-cheese-loving Frenchmen who are willing to take the additional risk of unpasteurized cheese.
The fact that government paternalism — the risks the society deems unacceptable for an individual to take — has cultural component is not in itself an argument against that paternalism.