[Closed] Helmets must be removed.

I was shopping once on my at to work when I was a motorcycle instructor. I was wearing a flip fronted helmet. Left it on my head with the chin piece up as it was easier to carry that way.

Staff member comes over and tells me I can't wear a helmet in the store. Short discussion then after stating my argument, I remove the helmet. Of course, I always wear a thin balaclava under my helmet. I just grinned and carried on with my shopping.

If you were going to rob a bank/shop/petrol station would you rather wear a crash helmet or a stocking on your head? Both will hide your features but a crash hat has a few other plusses

Removing a motorbike helmet is a minor inconvenience, rather than against deeply held beliefs.

That is a stoopid rule if it only applies to biker wearing helmet.

The rule should apply to everyone with covered face.

Either that or no face rule.

😯

A helmet is a bastard to carry with your hands full. Do many armed robbers browse the facial cleansers before robbing a store?

I've been asked to take a bicycle helmet off in France, not full-face, just the silly polystyrene thing that sits on top. Race issues no, religious issues possibly.

So, if I make up an imaginary super-being, get a few other people to go along with it, then claim that the super-being says I can't take the helmet off in shops, I'm okay to wear it and clearly not an armed robber?

Removing a motorbike helmet is a minor inconvenience, rather than against deeply held beliefs.

What if your deeply held belief is that all people should be treated equally?
[img] [/img]

This is going to be another religion thread isn't it? 😐

I won't. I flip the front which does bugger all as much of the time I have something over my mouth and nose. Was only asked once and I said "no, do you want me to pay outside?"
See their point but I refuse to be branded guilty when no one else takes their hats, scarves etc off.

Looks like it. It's inevitable though because two situations which in practical terms are identical are now not identical because one of them is religious!

Their shop, their rules.

As I understand it banks and the like need to see a person's face for certain transactions (such as confirming an ID when opening an account), but there is protocol for that - such as allowing a Niqab-wearer to go to a private room with a female member of staff to unveil.

Think they do something similar at airports.

Seems fair enough to me.

Perhaps helmet wearers could demand similar rights?

Their shop, their rules.

Does the same apply to the landlady who turned away a gay couple?

Removing a motorbike helmet is a minor inconvenience, rather than against deeply held beliefs.

I wear a motorcycle helmet for religious purposes.

This is going to be another religion thread isn't it?

I hope not actually, that really wasn't my intention. The elephant in the room is "religious privilege" I suppose, but I wasn't trying to go down that road. My point was more around why they're allowed to single out motorcyclists.

Their shop, their rules.

Eh?

So if it said "no black people" you'd be ok with that?

But, can they legally single out a demographic like this?

I'm not sure it really counts as a demographic. Statistically, armed robbers are likely to wear face coverings. Motorbike helmets are particularly popular as they also serve as a weapon, armour (so harder to overpower) and means of distorting/disguising the voice. Staff may well find it intimidating, too, for the reasons above. It only takes a moment's thought to consider why it's not really an unreasonable request.

But as it stands the implication is that if you're a biker you might be a criminal so we want to keep an eye on you

No, the implication is that if you're wearing a helmet you might be a robber; otherwise the sign would read:

"No motorcyclists with helmets allowed in store"

So if it said "no black people" you'd be ok with that?

Are you really, seriously, missing the difference?

In theory, everyone is equal.

In reality, some are more equal than others.

Is it just that anyone on two wheels gets victimised?

Does the same apply to the landlady who turned away a gay couple?

No.

I guess it's okay as someone in religious dress has never ever ever committed a violent crime.

My point was more around why they're allowed to single out motorcyclists.

They don't always. I've been asked to remove my bike helmet.

Tomhoward, that's my point, where's the line between the two?

I can't count the amount of times I was refused service in a pub in the 80s due to my preferred mode of transport.

Statistically, armed robbers are likely to wear face coverings.

Can you show me the statistics of the number criminals who wear helmets, compared with hoodies or religious coverings? EDIT - scratch that last bit, it's muddying the water. Why doesn't the sign say "helmets and hoodies must be removed"?

Motorbike helmets are particularly popular as they also serve as a weapon

All the more reason not to have it in your hand, then.

Staff may well find it intimidating, too,

Ah, so it's staff prejudice, then. Now we're getting somewhere.

the implication is that if you're wearing a helmet you might be a robber

See previous response.

Are you really, seriously, missing the difference?

No, you're taking a sentence out of context to point-score. I was replying to "their shop, their rules." That's demonstrably not the case as I've just, er, demonstrated.

Three Fish - walk away now, reasoned argument has no place here.

‘single out’ and 'demographic’ – have you been drinking!?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable crime prevention measure – particularly if you’re a staff member or customer that doesn’t want to be at the working end of a firearm.

Try going in wearing a hoodie and a scarf around your face covering everything except your eyes. Or failing that take the helmet off but leave the balaclava on with just a slit for your eyes. See if they stop you.

In my local Leclerc a few years back you din't just have to take the helmet off, you had to hand it in or they wrapped it up in cling film and gave it back.

Cougar, I don't believe that you're as ignorant or unreasonable as you're making out.

[i] can they legally single out a demographic like this? [/i]

Well, you managed to "single out" white people and you're still here....

Still.

Tomhoward, that's my point, where's the line between the two?

A gay person cannot stop being gay, a black person can't not be black. A person wearing a motorcycle helmet when not riding a motorbike has no reason to be wearing one.

Pretty sure that's why racial and sexual orientation discrimination is illegal and being asked to take your hat off isn't.

Do people really still rob places in a motorcycle helmet? Just strikes me as a very "sweenyx or " the professionals" sort of thing to do. Isn't it more hoodies these days?

Never really had a problem when wearing a helmet. Most places haven't challenged me, the ones that have will see me very clumsily and slowly remove my helmet, holding the queue up behind me. It is normally the people behind me who get vocal with the cashier until they relent and serve me. The cashiers give up on subsequent visits when faced with the same routine. Only one actually disabled the pump on seeing me pull up and refused to switch it back on so I left the bike at the pump for an whilst I sat on the wall calling some mates who all arrived on bikes causing chaos at the pumps.

‘single out’ and 'demographic’ – have you been drinking?

Demographic - just a handy word for a group of people with something in common. Read "group" if it makes you feel better.

Cougar, I don't believe that you're as ignorant or unreasonable as you're making out.

Makes two of us.

Look, it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, I just thought it'd be an interesting discussion. Am I being "unreasonable" in wondering why is it acceptable to ban helmets but not hoodies?

But Islam doesn't require face coverings. It's cultural, not religious. Where does that fit in?

But Islam doesn't require face coverings. It's cultural, not religious. Where does that fit in?

It's a "deeply held belief" seemingly.

I wish hadn't mentioned niqabs now, it's just massively complicated everything. Sorry.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable crime prevention measure – particularly if you’re a staff member or customer that doesn’t want to be at the working end of a firearm.

Yes, because if I had both a firearm and a motorbike helmet, seeing a sign at the entrance to a shop I was going to rob, telling me to remove my helmet would definitely stop me.

A helmet makes a pretty useful weapon, the Leclerc cling film idea was to make it more of a football and less of a weapon. Try wearing a hoodie and carrying a pick-axe handle.

Am I being "unreasonable" in wondering why is it acceptable to ban helmets but not hoodies?

It's not your wondering that's unreasonable, it's your assumptions and associated conclusions. You know full-well what the difference is; you're just choosing to ignore it.

Makes two of us.

Bobbins. Have a word with yourself.

It's not your wondering that's unreasonable, it's your assumptions and associated conclusions. You know full-well what the difference is; you're just choosing to ignore it.

Ok. Ignore my assumptions and conclusions. Let's assume they're wrong. Why don't you go ahead and tell me what the difference is? Why are helmets banned and not hoodies?

20 years ago whilst doing my european tour on my bike i was routinely asked to remove my helmet in supermarkets only today are bigots argueing that veil wearers should do the same.. grow up.

I can understand the getaway reasons for motorbikes, but you'd get so much more swag in a car!!

Why are helmets banned and not hoodies?

Why do you think?

Why do you think?

Why are you dodging the question?

Just in case Tescos are closet bikists, racists, helmetists or any other persuasion of ist, we should boycott their stores.

Seriously though, if you don't like their random restrictions, don't shop there. Plenty more shops that sell food....