Forum menu
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.
I never suggested it was, my point was about people being put off/upset/intimidated by others [i]appearances[/i].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?
unless deeply held beliefs are involved (I know I shouldn't but it's hard not to use [i]that[/i] comparison in this situation) - I broadly agree about the seeing peoples faces bit btwI think that people feel the need to read other people's faces.
I'm not saying people should walk around looking like those tools from daft punk but taking off your helmet off, especially in winter, seems a right old faff for a 10sec encounter with a petrol station cashier.
<edit> And seemingly badly thought out policy based on the "he looks a wrong 'un dressed like that" sentiment is not a good idea IMO
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.
so what is it based on then? all the other proposed reasons don't stand up to scrutiny either.But that's not what it's based on!!!
D0NK - Membertaking off your helmet off, especially in winter, seems a right old faff for a 10sec encounter with a petrol station cashier.
I can see why it might be difficult for people without hands, but for everyone else it's the work of moments. Especially if you're already taking off a glove to work your bank card etc.
I think 10 seconds or 10 minutes doesn't really make a difference to me, it's either rude or it's not, being rude for 10 seconds isn't really any different from being rude for longer.
To me there's a number of perfectly good reasons people might ask or expect you to remove your lid, but civility was all the reason I needed. And I never did find any real reason [i]not [/i]to other than, well, laziness.
I'm kind of an ex-biker now but I think casting this as anti-biker is plain silly.
To me there's a number of perfectly good reasons people might ask or expect you to remove your lid, but civility was all the reason I needed.
I think this is probably one of the most valid reasons, simply that it's rude not to. But that then doesn't explain why it's a policy directed solely at helmets, and round we go again. (And since when were Tesco our self-appointed politeness police anyway?)
so what is it based on then? all the other proposed reasons don't stand up to scrutiny either.
Whatever it was based on doens't have to stand up to scrutiny. I mean, it should, of course, but people often base things on misconceptions.
However, that doesn't automatically mean it's just a cover for people who don't like motorcyclists. I don't see why you can't understand the most likely reason for it - imo, this is as follows:
1) People feel uneasy and nervous when you can't see their faces
2) Robberies have been committed by people wearing helmets as disguise, which exacerbates point 1
3) Many employers have a policy to protect their staff from feeling threatened or intimidated.
4) Employers may think that they are helping to prevent crime because they are closing this particular method for actual criminals to disguise their identity. After all, most other methods of disguise would stand out like a sore thumb except motorbike helmets and burka/niqab. So it makes it a little harder for robbers.
5) They can't refuse to serve people wearing religious face cover because there are other laws against it that trump the right to refuse service. And on top of that, not many robberies are committed by muslim women (I'm guessing). Although there are possibly some, and there was that case where the suicide bomber dressed as a woman.
Don't you think that's plausible? It is not necessary to jump to the anti-motorcyclist prejudice conclusion to explain it.
But that then doesn't explain why it's a policy directed solely at helmets,
What else is there? What other face coverings are common yet not protected by other laws? Are there many downhillers wandering around the High St in goggles?
Cougar - Moderator(And since when were Tesco our self-appointed politeness police anyway?)
Since you're on their premises, interacting with their staff and their customers.
You say "why is it only helmets". It's not only helmets- they're not saying "take your helmet off. Leave everything else on". It's just specifically helmets, on that sign. But there's not many others, and most of the others aren't just a matter of convenience/laziness.
The obvious one is religious coverings. But even if you don't respect religion, or if you feel that covering your face is a mark of oppression, you still have to concede that demanding someone remove a face covering worn for religious reasons has a bigger impact than a helmet worn for convenience reasons.
It is not necessary to jump to the anti-motorcyclist prejudice conclusion to explain it.
in all honesty, I've never thought it was an intentional "we hate bikers, let's inconvenience them" policy. Rather, ill-conceived.
What other face coverings are common yet not protected by other laws?
I must have mentioned at least one other example a dozen times or more. Wrap a winter scarf around your neck, pull a hoodie hood down over your face and bow your head, maybe a baseball cap too, put some sunglasses on. Now look in a mirror and tell me if you'd pick out that face in a line-up.
I'll try and answer the rest of your post in a bit, I've stuff to do here just now.
The obvious answer is to clip-clop into the establishment wearing your helmet, enduro shorts, altura jacket with poo-like mud adorning your arse, face and teeth, muttering Je Suis Gnarly.
It's not only helmets... It's just specifically helmets
Seriously, you're arguing grammar now?
even if you don't respect religion, or if you feel that covering your face is a mark of oppression, you still have to concede that demanding someone remove a face covering worn for religious reasons has a bigger impact than a helmet worn for convenience reasons.
Of course. But it's a thorny issue and I didn't want to descend into Yet Another Religion Thread about special privilege which will no doubt run all too predictably so I was trying to avoid it.
everyone knows it's because our society (in the main) is too pathetic and battered down by the head in the clouds left to ask religious face-coverers to remove their err, face-covering. Don't we...well don't we...
I'm not, I'm not even a biker, but the discrepancy has on occasion piqued my interest enough to discuss it on t'internetI'm kind of an ex-biker now but I think casting this as anti-biker is plain silly.
1. Agreed but only seemingly applied to bikers.imo, this is as follows:
2. correlation
3. silliness - see my previous posts
4. Other methods of disguise are available and helmets on a petrol forecourt aren't exactly out of place are they (as I said, I'm not proposing you do your weekly shop in your full facer)
5. so picking on bikers coz they aren't protected?
yes, I can see why they might think it a good idea for the reasons you mentioned, but these "reasons" are easily refuted so why continue with the policy?Don't you think that's plausible?
I must have mentioned at least one other example a dozen times or more. Wrap a winter scarf around your neck, pull a hoodie hood down over your face and bow your head, maybe a baseball cap too, put some sunglasses on. Now look in a mirror and tell me if you'd pick out that face in a line-up.
I can see the sign now...
"No motorcycle helmets or hoodies with the hood up and with scarves wrapped around and with baseball caps and with sun-glasses while bowing heads".
Won't somebody think of the streetwise, American sport playing, overly polite Japanese people who suffer from glare and who feel the cold! 😉
Weren't hoodies 'famously' banned from Lakeside/Bluewater not so long ago?
EDIT: I say "not so long ago", [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4534903.stm ]turns out it was a decade ago[/url]! Eeeh, when I were a lad...
Cougar - ModeratorSeriously, you're arguing grammar now?
That's not grammar, it's substance. They're targeting one specific group with that sign, but that doesn't mean it's the only group the policy applies to- it's just the only one on the sign. Why single them out? Presumably because they think it's a big group that it's helpful to single out.
I worked in a retail bank for a while, if you came into my branch with a fullface on, you'd see a sign saying "please remove helmets". Then you'd get me tactfully asking you to take it off, and playing the fellow biker card, because I always jumped in before one of my colleagues was a dick about it. But if you came in wearing your Anonymous mask or a bucket on your head, you'd get asked to remove that too even though there's no sign about it.
It's not substance then, it's just a shit sign. And it's also not in a bank, where I'd hazard that slightly different rules apply.
"Sorry mate, you can't come into the store with your halloween mask on, company policy."
"Oh? Where's it say that?"
"On that sign that says 'no helmets'."
"Erm..."
Signs aren't there for you to play guessing games about what they might mean, they're to give clear information.
I can't believe you're still going on about this. 😆
Shit sign - fair enough. Lots of poorly worded signs and indeed policies. Glad we've moved away from 'the government sanctions anti-biker prejudice and propaganda and wishes them all dead'
Poddy, you are talking rubbish.
Ahh. The condescending MolgripsWhoKnowsEverything tone again!
Ride a motorbike, do you? 🙂
Is that why they spend so much money on Think Bike ads?
Because the accident statistics don't fit in the transport plans. They really don't. Read the motorcycle press.
Motorists don't like you when you perform insane manouvres potentially involving us in accidents. It's got nothing to do with jealousy.
Again, you don't ride a motorbike. You have only half an idea. And you're also proving my point in that statement alone! Also, as we've tried to hammer into your head before if I recall correctly (I'm not gonna try again now!) what seems 'insane' to you might not be to the biker. It's about perceptions. In all my days riding and driving I can literally count maybe two or three incidents involving bikes that i'd classify as mad/insane/stupid. One of them I actually had a word with the guy when he pulled into the same carpark as us, too, it was just a mad overtake on Mrs PP who was ahead of me.
Most of us could very easily afford motorbikes.
So why don't you join us then? Serious question.
Mostly it's to do with perceptions again though. EG - "Ohh, I can't, I'd kill myself" Surely you've heard that before? I've seen it on STW!
What the actual **** are you talking about?
Personal experience.
I have never heard anyone badmouth motorcyclists (unlike pedal cyclists) - only those performing aforementioned insane manovures.
I have. Quite often if it comes up in conversation and they go on and on and on about it, to your face. I can deal with that. But I've actually been in a group of people and had someone doing it behind my back, so I could hear it, to someone else.
You honestly are living in a fantasy land.
I'm not. But you can never accept something from someone else, can you? 🙂
My wife can back me up on this, but for instance, when we used to go touring on the motorbikes, we knew we had to book in advance. Why? Some campsites will turn you away. We had one or two try it when we turned up, one woman was visibly dismayed when Mrs PP chirped up "We've booked!"
Or performing lots of insane manovures without realising how much it stresses other road users out.
Jumping to assumptions again, like you always do. Last time I counted I'd done well in excess of 150,000 miles on motorbikes. I have ONE golden rule, and I'll admit to it here and now
[i]Only ride like a **** when there's nobody else around[/i]
And I have done, hell yes. What's the point of having a Ducati and not making it play the finest Italian concerto beneath you? It's a mechanical orgasam.... Shivers down my spine.... 🙂
But I currently do 12,000 + miles a year these days, on a low powered bike that'll just about do 110mph. I'm confident, smooth and steady. I can't afford to take risks.
I'll tell you what 'stresses other road uses out' right now: They don't see us, because they're not looking. And when they change lanes right in front of you, it can't be THEIR fault, can it? Noooooo.... never! Again, personal experience. Some just don't care and will pull out even if they DO see you. Had that this week actually.... I was ready for him....
Ohh yeah, in the past I've actually had someone try and force me off the road because I dared to filter to the front of a queue. Honest truth, that was all I'd done.
It happens. I'm not making it up, although, that said, it's happens less and less as time goes by. Which is nice. 🙂
Like I said, I'm calm and confident. I have to be. I have this bizarre outlook on the way I ride which I've tried to explain to others, and I struggle to get the point across. I'll try:
I TAKE responsibilty for YOUR actions. I take it from you, I watch you, I second guess you, I anticipate. (I'm quite good at it, always have been, it's like a 6th sense sometimes) but most of all I make your mistakes MY PROBLEM. It's hard to explain, I'm sort of alleviating you of the necessity to think in a way....
I don't get stressed about it, I don't blame you, I don't over react, but I deal with it, process it, act, and learn.
I've had two (minor) accidents that were someone else fault. But that's no good to me, blaming them. Because then I don't learn. So accept it, think about it, and learn. Neither will happen again. I have actually avoided someone in a van running into the back of me when I was waiting at some lights (Outside Barons BMW in Farnborough, as it happens)
Basically it doesn't matter who's fault it is to me. As long as I'm rubber side down I'm happy. 🙂
nd I have done, hell yes. What's the point of having a Ducati and not making it play the finest Italian concerto beneath you? It's a mechanical orgasam.... Shivers down my spine....
You don't fit the stereotype at all.
I'm calm
😀
"Sorry mate, you can't come into the store with your halloween mask on, company policy."
"Oh? Where's it say that?"
"we only have signs for the stuff that's most likely to happen, if we had a sign for everything that's not allowed this would look like a sign shop."
Simple.
Cougar - Moderator"Sorry mate, you can't come into the store with your halloween mask on, company policy."
"Oh? Where's it say that?"
"Just now, when I said it". There's not a sign that says you can't have a **** in the cash register either but I recommend against trying. Might get it caught in the note press.
Wow what a thread. I have had issues at petrol stations with my helmet, well that a lie, i have once and have never been back. I remove my helmet for going in and paying but for filling up its a faff with nowhere safe to put it. Station in question wouldnt turn the pump on so I just left.
Ohh yeah, in the past I've actually had someone try and force me off the road because I dared to filter to the front of a queue. Honest truth, that was all I'd done.
I've had that way more than once. One time at the next lights as the driver was threatening to run me over I reached in the car took the keys and chucked them up the road.