A small plaque at the foot of a tree at the end of a dirt road leading out of a car park near the village of Clouds Hill in the Dorset countryside marks the exact spot where on a rainy Sunday in May from 1935 Lawrence of Arabia jumped through the air on his motorcycle to avoid two cyclists he had not seen. An accident that not only resulted in the death of a legend – that of the Englishman friend of the Arabs who helped mobilize their revolt in the First World War, immortalized in the cinema by Peter O’Toole – but also open the doors to the introduction of compulsory helmets.
California is usually ahead of the world in many things, but in this it is behind. Its Senate has just passed a change in legislation (pending what the state Assembly decides) that exempts motorcyclists who wear “religious or cultural headgear,” such as a turban, from wearing helmets, a demand by the Sikh community to “to be able to practice their beliefs†while driving their two-wheeled Hondas, Toyotas or BMWs without fear of being pulled over by the sheriff and receiving a $250 fine. However, this exemption has existed in the United Kingdom since 1976, and for quite some time also in India and Canada.
In fact, the British have a very considerable head start on the Californians, because special motorcycle helmets for Sikhs have begun to be sold, wide enough to fit over turbans of up to ten meters of rolled cloth, but at the same time weather resistant to impact, with several layers of protection (foam and chain mail). They are marketed as an object that “makes security and religious needs compatible for the first time for motorcyclists” and are inspired by those worn by the warriors of this community to go into battle.
The matter is not without controversy, everywhere, and the positions vary between those who prioritize freedoms and security. In the United Kingdom, doctors have expressed their skepticism about this “special helmet”, and are in favor of everyone wearing a conventional one “which has proven to save lives”, without exemptions for cultural, religious or any other reasons. And the Automobile Club of Southern California opposes amending the Traffic 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 annual incomes above 50,000 euros, and only 1% claim social benefits in a country where five million do it). The first contact between English 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 India Company and then leaving go into exile in the luxurious neighborhood of Kensington. This influence extends to politics (there are numerous lords), to cooking, to language, and to cricket, and evidence of this is that they obtained the helmet exemption long ago, when California only raises
Motorcycle accidents make up twenty percent of the total on British streets and roads, with 285 deaths and 14,690 injuries recorded last year, which would be many more if it weren’t for the protection afforded by helmets (statistics indicate that prevents serious brain damage in 69% of cases). Lawrence of Arabia wasn’t wearing it – very few people were then – when he took a lightning-quick bend on the Cloud Hills to Bovington road (no longer there due to a re-routing) on ​​that Sunday morning in 1935 , and in the middle of the rain two cyclists appeared that he had to dodge. He jumped through the air and hit his head on the asphalt, and died as a result of his injuries six days later.
In 1973 the House of Commons passed legislation making helmets compulsory for everyone, and Sikhs got their exemption three years later. They are the object of a certain envy. Most appeals against fines for not wearing a helmet are from people who claim they paid a small fortune to get a perm at the hairdressers for a wedding or party, and didn’t want to ruin themselves the hair. But the authorities remain firm: only those wearing “religious or cultural” hairstyles are exempt, the others do not count. Not here or in California.
