[Closed] Helmets must be removed.

You know what, maybe I should just ask Tesco why their policy is the way it is.

Bingo!!

You've also failed to make a post on this thread that hasn't also included some sort of slight against me implying that I'm stupid. I've let it slide so far, but don't do it again.

If you want to be above criticism, measure your opinions accordingly, or just learn to deal with criticism. And don't go waving your mod stick at me just because I'm contrary to your view. It's not like I've been calling you a knob, I'm just refusing to go along with you and that's got your breeks in a knot. I've been perfectly polite with you...well, OK, maybe the 'bobbins' remark was a little pugnacious; but apart from that all I've done is called you out for being what I, and others, perceive as unreasonable. It's no slight on you at all to say that you have been willfully ignorant, because it's patently bloody obvious why shops might decide to not want helmet-clad people coming into their stores. Everyone knows that not everyone who wears a helmet is considered to be intent on burglary, but that's not what anyone besides you thinks Tesco (or anyone) is saying. They're mitigating risk and you know it. If you don't like it, shop somewhere else. Maybe ditch faceless behemoths like Tesco and support smaller local business, where you could get to know them personally and they won't care if you come in with your lid on because they'll recognise you some other way. It's not all that great a stretch of the imagination; is it?

If you want to be above criticism, measure your opinions accordingly, or just learn to deal with criticism. And don't go waving your mod stick at me just because I'm contrary to your view.

I don't want to be above criticism, I want you to stop calling me names. Is that such a tall order? You can be contrary all you like.

I want you to stop calling me names

Like what, exactly?

To be fair when I last held up a supermarket I wore my lid and used my bike to get away, so they may have a point.

Like what, exactly?

So far I've been ignorant, unreasonable, short on confidence, wilfully ignorant, dim-witted, and probably others, all in the space of three pages.

And for all your claim of me "waving my mod stick", the only reason I haven't given you a formal warning for your aggressive attitude yet is precisely because I'm the one on the receiving end and I didn't want to be accused of bias or hiding behind a badge. So, knock it off and keep it civil.

[s]

What's up? Short on confidence?

then the post after that you said

I believed you to be being willfully ignorant. I asserted that, if you actually thought about it, you'd be able to understand why shops might want to stop people coming onto their premises wearing a motorcycle helmet. I do not believe for one minute that you can not see their perspective - so quit making dim-witted comparisons with hooded tops, religious headgear and whatever else and just deal with the actual question of why shops might want this rule.

I got bored then and only did some of page 2 the bits after the one you said you were a bit "pugnacious"

HTH[/s]

Ah **** it

[img] [/img]

Can we all join in with a bit of Cougar-bashing? I've always thought he's a stupid knob too.

Cougar, you big stupid knob. 😮

Don't make me get the hammer (-:

It's the true feelings thread. It's like the STW version of that film, [i]The Purge[/i].

I've only skimmed the thread, but I can't help notice that nobody has pointed out that if you are going to rob a shop you are highly unlikely to abide by a no helmet rule... So what is the point. Honest law-abiding shoppers are going to take their helmets off. Robbers aren't.

Just asking, it's been many years since I had a motorbike.
Strangely no one wore lids into shops.
Taking a lid off took seconds.
Big difference though. We used to use the helmet locks always. I guess that's a theft issue now, so is that the problem?

I always took my helmet off in shops, petrol stations etc, because I'm not a ****. Maybe if you're going to do something that requires no talking to anyone it's reasonable to leave it on but if you're at a checkout or a till, wearing a full face helmet? You're a ****.

So far I've been ignorant, unreasonable, short on confidence, wilfully ignorant, dim-witted, and probably others, all in the space of three pages.

OK, the dim-witted comment was poorly chosen. I apologise. I stand by the context in which I used it, though. To ask if you were short on confidence was, I concede, somewhat of a low blow. Again, I apologise. I'll aim for the nose next time*...

To say that you are being willfully ignorant and unreasonable - as in you purposefully refuse to consider a perspective - is not to call you names. It's a perfectly valid observation. The retort would be to explain why you believe that observation is incorrect, not to take it personally.

*just kidding

I have a schuberth concept helmet. Even with the visor down you can see my entire face, it seriously is like wearing a goldfish bowl! Added to this, the chin bar flips up revealing my ugly mug in its entirety...

As a glasses wearer, to take off a helmet requires removing both gloves, unclipping (or threading in the case of double d) the strap, then removing my glasses and resting them on the tank/seat, pulling off the helmet (if the helmet fits right this is a two handed job), then grovelling around on the dark road surface under your bike looking for your glasses which you've just knocked off the seat...
Add to this winter commuting gear such as under gloves and an array of neck warmer things that all need careful tucking in to prevent draughts or rain ingress and it soon becomes a pain in the neck to remove the helmet for the sake of waving a card at a machine or better still throwing cash at an attendant.

That said, the only time I have ever been refused to fill was Tesco pay at pump with my card already approved...

I apologise.

Accepted, thank you. Wasn't really seeking an apology, I was just running out of patience with the direction we were headed.

The retort would be to explain why you believe that observation is incorrect, not to take it personally.

I thought I had, but never mind. I don't usually take things personally but it felt a bit relentless. Sorry, I'm not usually grumpy.

Not entirely sure that I was "purposely" doing anything other than disagreeing with you. Or, not even that, but remaining unconvinced.

I've only skimmed the thread, but I can't help notice that nobody has pointed out that if you are going to rob a shop you are highly unlikely to abide by a no helmet rule... So what is the point. Honest law-abiding shoppers are going to take their helmets off. Robbers aren't.

FWIW - I've fairly recently seen person with hoodie+buff asked to "uncover" at the bank (when in the queue), and a guy with a "wee jimmy hat" and a "braveheart" painted face and a plastic axe get a bollocking in a big glasgow post office about 20 yrs ago.

and they don't care you are a motorcyclist - if you turn up in a car with a crash helmet (or on skis with a lid and goggles!) expect a similar response.

As Lerk mentioned; taking the helmet off (particularly if you are a specs wearer) is a real PITA hence I just ignore the signs.

As also earlier mentioned unless you are skilled juggler it's hard to do much of anything one handed with a helmet in your hand [:-)]

Never had any one refuse to serve though very occasionally get a comment.

I can't really go with this being a problem. The gloves thing doesn't wear, can you get out your cash or enter your pin gloved?

Surely this is as big a problem as going round your mums for a cuppa and having to take off your helmet

[img] [/img]

Those quoting that it makes the staff feel safe should have a quick search for burka robbers. Not that surprising that it has become the fashion for robbers wishing to disguise their identity.
As lerk stated removing and refitting an helmet can take longer than filling up and paying. Add cold hands and it takes even longer especially when the visor steams up when you put it back on. When I do remove my helmet my unscrunching face usually looks a lot scarier than with it.

Blimey, an argument thread. What a treat. I wonder if the non helmet wearers are also automatically not robbers. Someone should tell the bobbies, it'd save them a bit of time clearing up.

FWIW 3fish from the view of an innocent bystander, you did come over a bit argumentative though reasonably well written. Unfortunately when reason failed you seemed to get a bit nastier. It's hard to tell, you may have been all smiley and Happy when writing but that's not the impression at this end. Oh, and Cougar is undoubtedly a nob of the highest order 🙂

I ride a motorbike more than most on STW. I've done lots of miles on a few different bikes over the last 17 years, I'm a regular commuter, it's not a weekend toy to me. For instance I did 12,500 miles last year. This necessitates filling up every 4 working days......
I all the last 17 or so years I've only been asked to remove my helmet 3 times. Once at a petrol station several years back over the tannoy. If I recall correctly it was a Morrisons and these was a thing about them in MCN at the time, and their daft helmet policy, which they've since dropped as the top brass realised it was stooooopid.
The second one was in Sainsbursys in Staines about 18 months ago. I'd gone in for one item, picked it up and paid on the self service checkout. I was in a hurry. I actually wasn't aware I'd had someone running around behind me saying 'excuse me' for a while because I had earplugs in..... I didn't actually stop walking the whole time he was having a go at me (as I said, I was in a hurry) and I simply refused, and carried on with what I was doing with the security guard huffing and puffing after me. I wasn't rude, but I was quite firm about it, and I also found it quite amusing! I doubt I was in the store more than 2 minuted total but he followed me outside to my bike where the manager joined him and told me they were going to ban me. "You'll have a job" I said, "you can't see my face so you don't know who I am" I thumbed the starter button and left. I did go back a few times after that.
The last one I can think of was in a Post Offce inside Asda in Farnborough. I thought I was OK in an open face lid. Apparently not. I did point out the old lady next to me had covered just as much of her head with her hat, though, which caused some awkward umming and ahhing from the lady serving me.....
Usually if it's banks and shops, I'll have parked up somewhere and taken my lid off anyway, and I understand that people do rob banks wearing helmets, so apart from the open face incident I always remove my lid. But for filling up and quickly nipping to a shop I'm not gonna bother, TBH. It's not necessary. It's fairly obvious when you're standing in queue or pulling a card out of your wallet that you're not gonna rob the place!

I don't really see how "staff prejudice" is something to get all het up about here. The simple fact is that some robbers DO wear helmets (see below), so surely you can imagine how staff would feel when they see someone approaching them wearing a helmet?

Admittedly the evidence below is anecdotal rather than statistical, but given that I found 4 stories on the front page of google after 1 search you would suspect there is some link.

FWIW, I can see why you'd be annoyed at having to take your helmet off, but can't you also see how a helmet-wearing person could put staff on edge? Admittedly making honest folk take their helmet off won't do anything to stop robberies, but is it fair of you to make the staff feel unsafe because you can't be bothered to take it off?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/cctv-released-after-armed-robber-a53288/

http://www.****/news/article-2728596/Armed-robber-died-eight-heroes-sat-police-arrived-bungled-jewellery-raid.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-29423715

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/armed-robber-wearing-bike-helmet-6399876

@peterpoddy - I tend to think its my eye wateringly bright hi viz vest that marks me out as 'probably not a robber'

I've been riding motorbikes for about 35 years now, and can remember it being fairly common practice for some pubs / cafes / shops to display 'no bikers' signs. I think, at the time, it probably had more to do with bikers being seen as trouble causers rather than anything else. As for removing my lid in shops nowadays, it depends what I'm doing - if I'm just nipping in for fags, etc, I keep it on, if I'm going to Tesco's, etc, I remove it. Never really had a problem with garages asking me to take my helmet off when filling up or paying for fuel, though I wonder if this is due to the fact that I don't wear a full face helmet (yes, I'm a sad Harley owner, I wear either an open face or a half helmet, yes I do look like I'm auditioning for the village people, etc, etc.)
Not sure that any of this is a political or religious issue, to be honest, although some of the more right wing members of society will use any excuse to have a whinge, I suppose.

Admittedly the evidence below is anecdotal rather than statistical, but given that I found 4 stories on the front page of google after 1 search you would suspect there is some link.

If you search for robbers wearing glasses you get a page full of results. Best ban people wearing glasses in stores too.

It is a pointless policy that enforces prejudice against bikers. Lets face it you would be a pretty stupid robber to dress up as biker as most are wearing HiViz or mimicking a power ranger. If someone pulled up in a car wearing helmet then they would have rights to be concerned.

Surely the helmet issue is about the difficulty of security folks bonking wearers on the head or squirting stuff in their eyes in the event of a shindig?

My jacket and trousers are armoured too but no one has asked me to remove those so that security guards can beat me if I decided to rob the place.

My jacket and trousers are armoured too but no one has asked me to remove those so that security guards can beat me if I decided to rob the place

Maybe they decided the horror of seeing you without pants outweighed the downside of you potentially being a criminal?

You should see the results of my helmet head, features all squashed up, hair all over the place, snotty nose and that is after I've taken it off.

PeterPoddy - Member

I actually wasn't aware I'd had someone running around behind me saying 'excuse me' for a while because I had earplugs in.....

That's not cool... It's exactly this sort of thing that meant I always took mine off.

A google image search for "bank robbery cctv" shows a good selection of balaclavas, hoodies, motorcycle helmets and one bloke in a green trilby.

The ones in helmets are by far the most anonymous - there's no hint of head size, shape or facial features at all.

Cougar - Moderator

Eh?

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

I think I would be; I mean hands up here who would use such a shop? 💡

Eh actually when you do a search for armed robbers with glasses you only get one result where it's actually a robbery where someone was wearing glasses.

Anyway, this does nothing to address the point that it's really about how safe the staff feel. At the end of the day, the owner of the store doesn't have to serve anyone and if they feel that their staff are intimidated by people wearing helmets (or hoodies for that matter) then they have the right to refuse them service.

FWIW, I'd agree that opening the front of a flip-front helmet or people with open face helmets should be fine to wear.

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.

why apologise? its a perfectly logical question IMO.
its makes sense for a would be robber to go in wearing a crash helmet as a means of concealing their face and to use as a weapon of sorts if needs be, but its also possible for some young thug to go into a shop with his hood up and a balaclava or mask to conceal his/her face. it is also possible for someone to disguise themselves in a burqa/niqab to do the same thing...i think i have read about a terror suspect either evading the law doing this or got caught wearing one...i cant remember

also the previous poster was correct in that Islam doesnt require the face to be covered...this is misinterpreted by those who claim its a deeply held belief

It is a pointless policy that enforces prejudice against bikers

Lol.. what rubbish.

Lets face it you would be a pretty stupid robber to dress up as biker

It seems to have happened though.

I'm not sure motorcyclists realise how unsettling and strange it is to be spoken to by someone wearing a full face tinted helmet.

At the end of the day, the owner of the store doesn't have to serve anyone and if they feel that their staff are intimidated by people wearing helmets (or hoodies for that matter) then they have the right to refuse them service.

And if they're big old racists who feel intimidated by brown people, can they refuse to serve them too?

No because discriminating against black people is illegal, in separate legislation.

Requiring people to show their faces isn't. I don't know if there is a legal exemption on religious grounds.

That's just a daft argument, and you know it. You could extend it to anything you wanted to carry around with you "Wah, they won't let me come in the shop with my big sword even though I'm a pirate. This is discrimination against pirates, they wouldn't be allowed to refuse service to black people!"

Point is, you're judging people by the way they look. You can dress that how you like, but it's not cool.

Cougar, stop being stupid.

(Is [i]Purgenacht[/i] still going or am I going in the cooler?)

So if I was to go into a store wearing a balaclava because it was really cold out it would be unfair of the staff to be a bit concerned about it?

What this boils down to on the side of the staff is that a lot of robbers obscure their face while committing their crime, whether that be by wearing a helmet, a hoodie, or otherwise. It's therefore going to make staff feel safer if they ask anyone entering the store not to obscure their face (not going near the niqab issue with a barge-pole).

What it boils down to on the side of the bikers is that it's inconvenient to take your helmet off.

Point is, you're judging people by the way they look. You can dress that how you like, but it's not cool.

(not going near the niqab issue with a barge-pole).

i'll do it for you...the burqa and niqab should be banned everywhere...not just the UK but in every country. its use is wrong as it is a way of suppressing women into thinking that they are doing the right thing by covering themselves up. it is wrongly interpreted by those who enforce/believe in its use and the subject that wrong understanding onto the women around them and fool them into thinking its use is correct.
there is no text in the Quran that says a woman should cover her face...she should only cover her body and head and only show that which is necesary i.e. hands, feet and face...the the hijab is correct.
my wifes sister in law wears one as she has been instructed by her husband...i've questioned his interpretation of this many times and he's never been able to logically or correctly justify it....the guy goes as far as saying she cant sit in the presence of other men including family members...when in the Quran it says a woman should cover herself in public but can appear less covered in the presence of male family members.
its worse at public event such as weddings...i see a group of them all dressed the same and ask myself how do their husbands know they are even taking the correct wife home?? 😯

Are Drac and Cougar being encouraged to troll the forum now? Has website traffic been declining recently or something?

i'll do it for you...the burqa and niqab should be banned everywhere...not just the UK but in every country. its use is wrong as it is a way of suppressing women into thinking that they are doing the right thing by covering themselves up.

I feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea of the burqa and niqab but I really don't think telling people what they are allowed to wear in the name of freedom is the way to go.

If it's one of these

[img] [/img]

then, yes, take it off

The simple fact is that some robbers DO wear helmets (see below), so surely you can imagine how staff would feel when they see someone approaching them wearing a helmet?

Dunno about you but my first thought is "oh, here's a motorcyclist" [b]*[/b]

I've read through this thread and noticed on a couple of occasions mention has been made to staff enforcing policy not setting it, and also to overzealous enforcement.

This bit warrants extra discussion as precisely what Couger was on about is that the rule or policy is "no helmets", not "no face coverings", yet we have reports of people in open face helmets or with visor/chin up and still being asked to remove them.

That is strict adherence to the "no helmets" rule and nothing to do with face covering.

If the rule is rooted in a need for security, needing to see faces and such, then it *should* be "no covered faces" but we've singled out a particular type of (not always) face covering based on a minor correlation between helmet wearers and robbers.

And we've already conceded that it does nothing to actually stop the determine robbers as once you've crossed the line to deciding to rob somewhere the small matter of disobeying a store policy isn't going to trouble you much, so why are we doing it...

If it truly is for the benefit of the staff then we've created a situation where we now assume that anyone in a helmet is potentially up to no good, arguably this is worse than before!

Before you had the the fear of being robbed by someone in a helmet (which has not decreased as we've already agreed that the actual robbers won't care)

Now you have the fear of being robbed by someone in a helmet + the fear of *anyone* in a helmet + the fear of being robbed by people with other face coverings.

Personally I find this slightly unsettling, even though on the face of it I can understand the reasoning behind the rules.

But in that same vein I can also understand the justification for extending the rule to hoodies, balaclavas, scarves, or other religious or non-religious face coverings, but this unsettles me even more as I find the concept of assigning suspicion, and assumption of intent to people based purely on what they are wearing even more unpleasant, especially as it will breed increased fear of anyone with a covered face.

Ultimately the fear of other members of our own society of is the issue, but I don't know how you deal with that 🙁

Point is, you're judging people by the way they look. You can dress that how you like, but it's not cool.

It's not comparable!!! It's not even close to being comparable! You have a real victim complex over this, and to compare it to racial or religious prejudice is verging on the offensive. You're doing yourself no favours, man. Think about what you're saying.

This shit has to be a troll. Nothing else makes sense.

[b]*[/b]

I wanted to clarify my asterisk bit as it's something that troubles me in general...

My mother has great fear of crime, she gets anxious very easily, she wont take her eyes off her bag even when sitting in a sleepy seaside cafe with 3 other old dears, she's at the window the instant she hears a helicopter etc.

My Girlfriend to some degree is the same, she wont go running after dark (even at 5pm in winter), even on safe routes with lots of foot traffic and by major roads, and chiefly because of the fear of being attacked/mugged etc, despite these being very rare occurences and especially in the areas she would be.

But the fear is there, even reading about someone being mugged or attacked, while running along unlit quiet paths at 11pm, in another city 50miles away is enough to make her think twice about going out at 4-5pm in a nearby well lit park.

It saddens me that we live in such fear, bad things will and do happen, but they are far from the norm and to live in fear is a terrible thing, especially in this relatively safe country.

I used to work in a bank in my yoof (Lloyds as it happens, bastids)

counter staff had discretion, full face with dark visor? take it off please chap, open face? Generally no problem as you can see their face, same with old biddies in bobbly hats, and yoof in hoodies

Man in Balaclava: ME "you not going to rob us are you, ha ha? [smile to indicate joke and conversion between humans...]

Him "How dare you impinge my human rights, and doubt my good name and rights etc etc etc [for 5 minutes at volume,] I want to see the manager, and I'm going to be shouty and unreasonable...

My Manager "Here Nick have this written warning..."

It's not the Helmet wearers, it's the knitted hat and face coverers you've got to watch!

Blimey Three Fish, calm yourself down, you're gonna pop a bollock at this rate!

It's not comparable!!! It's not even close to being comparable! You have a real victim complex over this,

All right, forget "comparable" for a minute. Being punched in the face isn't comparable to being murdered but that doesn't mean it's cool to go round thumping folk. Can't you see why this is an issue?

If staff feel "intimidated" by someone because they wear a helmet, or a leather jacket, or are a punk, or have piercings, or are male, or are youths in hoodies, or have a beard and a rucksack, or are overweight, or have any other affectation that makes them different or a look a bit funny, then these views [i]need [/i]challenging, people need educating. Because it's prejudice, pure and simple. You know nothing about a person yet you've already passed judgement. The problem isn't the bloke with the helmet, it's others looking down their noses at them.

And seeing as so many people seem to be struggling with this I'll tell you why it's so important. If these views don't get challenged, if people don't realise that this sort of thinking is unacceptable, then you get cases like Sophie Lancaster.

Hell, come to that, [i]I've [/i]been walking through town minding my own business and been set upon by a gang of lads for the heinous crime of having long hair and a leather jacket. Is this acceptable behaviour that we should be encouraging?

the burqa and niqab... its worse at public event such as weddings...i see a group of them all dressed the same and ask myself how do their husbands know they are even taking the correct wife home??

🙂

Nice bit of levity.

All right, forget "comparable" for a minute. Being punched in the face isn't comparable to being murdered but that doesn't mean it's cool to go round thumping folk. Can't you see why this is an issue?

If staff feel "intimidated" by someone because they wear a helmet, or a leather jacket, or are a punk, or have piercings, or are male, or are youths in hoodies, or have a beard and a rucksack, or are overweight, or have any other affectation that makes them different or a look a bit funny, then these views need challenging, people need educating. Because it's prejudice, pure and simple. You know nothing about a person yet you've already passed judgement. The problem isn't the bloke with the helmet, it's others looking down their noses at them.

And seeing as so many people seem to be struggling with this I'll tell you why it's so important. If these views don't get challenged, if people don't realise that this sort of thinking is unacceptable, then you get cases like Sophie Lancaster.

Hell, come to that, I've been walking through town minding my own business and been set upon by a gang of lads for the heinous crime of having long hair and a leather jacket. Is this acceptable behaviour that we should be encouraging?

[img] [/img]

I find the concept of assigning suspicion, and assumption of intent to people based purely on what they are wearing even more unpleasant

Precisely. Let's reword that statement you replied to, see if it's a bit clearer.

The simple fact is that some robbers DO wear helmets (see below), so surely you can imagine how staff would feel when they see someone approaching them wearing a helmet?

"The simple fact is that some terrorists DO carry rucksacks, have beards and a swarthy complexion, so surely you can imagine how staff would feel when they see someone approaching them who's Asian?"

Still ok? Exactly the same situation, you're making a snap decision, almost certainly erroneously, based on the way someone looks. Anyone here who wouldn't react negatively to someone who said they were scared of brown people because they might get a bit explody? So why is it ok to judge someone [i]because they're wearing a gods damned helmet?[/i]

Good grief, and [i]I'm[/i] the one that's supposed to be having a word with myself?

I've been walking through town minding my own business and been set upon by a gang of lads for the heinous crime of having long hair and a leather jacket

Perhaps they simply had a dislike of Farscape, though that, too, would be equally unacceptable, obviously.

Perhaps they simply had a dislike of Farscape, though that, too, would be equally unacceptable, obviously.

Yes, these Bialar Crais attacks are getting out of hand.

And seeing as so many people seem to be struggling with this I'll tell you why it's so important. If these views don't get challenged, if people don't realise that this sort of thinking is unacceptable, then you get cases like Sophie Lancaster.

I think this might be the worst slippery slope argument I've ever heard - bravo.

By the way, here's a quote from you Cougar that applies pretty well in this situation:

A better solution might be for the terminally offended and the offended-by-proxy people to stop taking offence where clearly none was intended.

Clearly no offence was intended with the sign in Tesco.

Okay so parallels are now being drawn between people being asked to remove their helmets and racism/racial profiling. I can sense Godwin's law coming up soon.

If you can't understand why people would be intimidated by a faceless man wearing a helmet then you must have very little empathy.

Bored of this now...

If you can't understand why people would be intimidated by a faceless man wearing a helmet then you must have very little empathy.

That's not really the argument though is it?

And we've not even settled on it being about intimidation, some argue its for the staff, some argue is for security, some say a mixture, either way, the OP's question was about why we single out helmet wearing and not 'face covering'

If you must get bored, get bored about the actual topic, not something else you imagined it to be about.

I used to work in a Tesco express, one of the main reasons helmets were asked to be removed was because a large number of the staff are little old ladies just doing a bit of part time work to supplement their retirement. Sort of 50s+.

These women often get intimidated by large blokes dressed in black leathers with a black helmet It can be scary for them, especially at times when there is only two of them in the store.

It's about making the staff comfortable as much as it is about grabbing CCTV images.

Don't forget a helmet can add a couple of inches to someones perceived height. Imagine you're a 5.4 foot 50 year old woman and bloke who looks 6.4" comes towering over you.

Whilst I may or may not agree on the topic of veils/burkas in general, a piece of cloth draped over a women isn't really in the same league as a leather glad bloke in terms of the intimidation scale (maybe if you vote Tory it is)

EDIT: It's kind of on the same theory as to why they ask males to put their shirt on in summer when entering the store.

That's not really the argument though is it?

It's not?

I thought the argument is why are motorcyclists being singled out?

I imagine if I went in wearing a ski mask I'd get similar treatment.

@peterpoddy - I tend to think its my eye wateringly bright hi viz vest that marks me out as 'probably not a robber'

LOL! 😆

I thought the argument is why are motorcyclists being singled out?

Because it's acceptable, in general.
Bikers bear the brunt of a lot of crap like this:
We don't conform to accident statistics* so the Government don't want us
Historically, we have a bit of an image problem so the general public don't like us
We can pass stationary traffic at the rate of 100 cars/minute, and hit 100mph at will in the blink of an eye, so motorists don't like us as they just can't do that, although they want to.

it's like fat people. It's acceptable top laugh at fat people, just like it's acceptable to single out a biker.

*There has however been a massive improvement here over the last few years, far more than for cars, way over target. It's been a shift in attitude, mostly, that hasn't happened with car drivers

Some of them get angry really easily too.

I watched a documentary about people who ride motorbikes - [url= http://www.sons-of-anarchy.net ]it doesn't quite show the safe, cuddly image some of you are trying to portray.[/url]

Good. I like people to be afraid of me. 😆

re staff intimidation, people can feel threatened/be offended by all sorts, I saw a guy the other day whose face and (shaved) head was covered in tattoos, I'll be there's shop/bank employees who would feel scared serving him. The people who have various metal work in their face who would upset some, I'm sure many christians would be perturbed by someone with horn implants. I think I'll steer clear of the emotive disfigurement element for now.

All of this unjustly* getting upset by people's appearance is silly and shouldn't be pandered to.
If it's a face/cctv security concern then it should be no face coverings, all or nothing and open face helmets should be fine. The rest of the "security" arguments look baseless under a little scrutiny.

*getting upset at someone in a balaclava bulletproof vest holding a gun is probably valid
<edited to add unjustly bit>

Poddy, you are talking rubbish.

We don't conform to accident statistics* so the Government don't want us

Is that why they spend so much money on Think Bike ads?

We can pass stationary traffic at the rate of 100 cars/minute, and hit 100mph at will in the blink of an eye, so motorists don't like us as they just can't do that, although they want to.

Motorists don't like you when you perform insane manouvres potentially involving us in accidents. It's got nothing to do with jealousy. Most of us could very easily afford motorbikes.

it's like fat people. It's acceptable top laugh at fat people, just like it's acceptable to single out a biker.

What the actual **** are you talking about? I have never heard anyone badmouth motorcyclists (unlike pedal cyclists) - only those performing aforementioned insane manovures.

You honestly are living in a fantasy land. Or performing lots of insane manovures without realising how much it stresses other road users out.

I saw a guy the other day whose face and (shaved) head was covered in tattoos, I'll be there's shop/bank employees who would feel scared serving him

That's nothing like not being able to see a face at all. It's well known how much meta-information is transferred through facial expressions - tattooed or otherwise.

I have never heard anyone badmouth motorcyclists

Out of interest, did you notice many people badmouthing cyclists before you became one?

Motorists don't like you when you perform insane manouvres potentially involving us in accidents. It's got nothing to do with jealousy. Most of us could very easily afford motorbikes.

Whilst filtering through traffic I had van drivers looking at me in their mirror and laughing whilst turning into me to stop me going past. Who was performing insane manoeuvres then?

I had van drivers looking at me in their mirror and laughing whilst turning into me to stop me going past. Who was performing insane manoeuvres then?

Did I say all drivers were perfect and all motorcyclists were arseholes? No.

All you've shown is that some van drivers are arseholes - a fact that didn't need proving.

Out of interest, did you notice many people badmouthing cyclists before you became one?

Honestly don't know. I've always been one. However as you can probably tell I tend to notice when groups of people are suffering prejudice even if I do not belong to that group.

Yeah, you do, and it's commendable, but,

a) you probably don't notice as much as you might think until it affects you personally. That's just human nature.

And,

b) you won't have it directed at you precisely because someone's found out you're a biker.

That's nothing like not being able to see a face at all.

So what do people say to you?

I never suggested it was, my point was about people being put off/upset/intimidated by others appearances.

I think that people feel the need to read other people's faces. If someone came in looking aggressive or hyped up, you'd be put on your guard a bit. So in the absence of any information people assume the worst. It's natural when you can't see faces - people do it in cars, they do it on here.

It's also why we have things like manners and social conventions - so people know what to expect.

So what do people say to you?

Broadly the same ill-conceived rash generalisation shite that cyclists get, only without the Road Tax slur. "All bikers are [a menace / shouldn't be on the road / reckless / power rangers / deserve to be under a bus / overtake "illegally" / dead and I'm glad etc etc] and that's just when they're on a bike. Biker friendly pubs are invariably drug dens / rough / always full of fights / dangerous to go near yadda yadda. There's a very real and common belief that if you ride a motorbike you're a psycho. Oh, and did you miss the assertion earlier on this thread that motorcyclists tend to be armed robbers?

I think that people feel the need to read other people's faces.

Bikers are awesome.

The transplant service couldn't function without them.

And seemingly badly thought out policy based on the "he looks a wrong 'un dressed like that" sentiment is not a good idea IMO

But that's not what it's based on!!!

Oh, and did you miss the assertion earlier on this thread that motorcyclists tend to be armed robbers?

Yes!

Darcy... . 😀

Tescos must use Mad Max 1 and Easy Rider as training videos.