[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....

In over 30 years of riding motorbikes I've only once been refused fuel unless I remove my lid. At the nearest petrol station to my house, and in the last year.

I lobbed the filler to the ground like a petulant teenager and rode off, never to return. I faced endless predujice* in the 80's for the heinous crime of choosing to ride a motorcycle, and to say it p*sses me off is an understatement.

* I realise I have made the choice to ride a bike, and therefore it on no way compares to prejudice against skin colour, sex, accent etc, but it's mindless prejudice nonetheless and hence unacceptable.

Why are helmets banned and not hoodies?
Why do you think?

Because there's more chance of motorcyclists being reasonable people who will conform to the request where as they think a hoodie wearer with be a violent yoof and they fear conflict?

(-:

Unless they're armed robbers, of course.

Why are you dodging the question?

I dealt with it 20-something minutes ago. Why would you rather argue with me than think about it, and answer it, yourself? What's up? Short on confidence?

Just wear a turban, Cougar. Legal on a bike and no-one will ever ask you to take it off. They might ask for papers showing your religious belonging though.

Edit to add: 💡

I dealt with it 20-something minutes ago.

Well, I replied to your post from 20 minutes ago and asked for clarification on a couple of your points. You ignored that and chose to go all ad hominem instead, so I thought you had something else.

Just wear a turban, Cougar.

(-: That's a great idea. Can I carry one of those big swords as well?

I'm concerned that some on here are suggesting that because someone makes a choice, it's okay to treat them differently because of that choice but it's wrong to do the same if someone can't choose sexual orientation or skin colour.

So, I choose to ride a bike. Are we suggesting that it's okay for other road users to discriminate against me because I choose to ride a bike. Does riding a bike need to be a compulsion I have no control of before I get any respect on the road?

Not exactly the same as what's being discussed here, but not a million mile away either.

Just wear a turban, Cougar

How are you expected to fit a helmet over a turban? 😈

IanMunro,

You're being flippant. Have I really got to explain this?

An individual wearing a CH who enters a Tesco automatically & immediately invites attention. This is not what the majority of armed robbers want - funny enough. This would not be the case if they didn't have this policy & multiple persons were wandering around wearing them.

We're an hour into he "religious" thread, for that's really what it's turned into..

Same arguments really, nothing new uncovered (cough) and yet there are many folks that quite legitimately walk into Tesco's not wearing a helmet, far more than walk in wearing one.

Suggest if you are really, really that bothered about it perrrraps you shop in there without a lid on so's not to single yourself out for ridicule/correction or none admittance.

That'll solve it.

Shirley wearing a bike lid in said store is singling yourself out as some lefty sandal knitting, warp your own jumpers, lentil scoffing teacher..

Phah

😛

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

Are you lot wearing your hoodies wrong ?

If you wear them correctly they don't cover your face.

They cover the back of your head and your ears

(The zip should be at the front, if it's at the back and you can't see anything, you've got it on wrong)

An individual wearing a CH who enters a Tesco automatically & immediately invites attention.

And why is this acceptable? What if I had a leather jacket, or a beard and a rucksack?

Anyway, the message is clear. Want to stage an armed robbery at Tesco's, wear a scarf and a hoodie.

We're an hour into he "religious" thread, for that's really what it's turned into..

Except, it really hasn't. I quickly realised that mentioning religious trappings was a mistake and have been trying to steer it back on track ever since.

If you wear them correctly they don't cover your face.

But they could do, if you so choose, easily as much if not more than a flip-front lid with the front open.

Suggest if you are really, really that bothered about it

I'm not really bothered about it, as I said earlier. I just thought it'd make for an interesting discussion. Seems from the comments that a couple of people are really bothered that I even mentioned it though, which I don't really get.

That said, it would be an inconvenience to try to juggle a shopping basket, a scan-as-you-shop gun, groceries [i]and[/i] a helmet though. You'd need three hands.

A helmet wearer earlier.

But they could do, if you so choose, easily as much if not more than [b]a flip-front lid with the front open[/b]

That's just staff applying the rules wrong I would imagine.

Well, I replied to your post from 20 minutes ago and asked for clarification on a couple of your points. You ignored that and chose to go all ad hominem [sic] instead, so I thought you had something else.

I said that 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 get it; I don't need to go over it all again. If I was going into a shop, I'd automatically take my helmet off - not just because it might make staff uncomfortable, but because there's bugger all point in keeping it on.

Just wear your burqa over your helmet.

That said, it would be an inconvenience to try to juggle a shopping basket, a scan-as-you-shop gun, groceries and a helmet though. You'd need three hands.

Or use a trolley.

I said that I believed you to be being willfully ignorant.

So to recap,

I suggested that helmets may be banned banned because of CCTV.

You've suggested that it's because it's statistically popular with armed robberies (though you've failed to back up with any sort of evidence for this assertion), because it can be used as a weapon (and is obviously much safer when being swung around at arm's length), and because of staff prejudice.

I've questioned most of this because of reasons as just mentioned, and explained in passing why it's an inconvenience (as have others). Then you've followed up saying there's no reason not to. Um.

I don't have the stats (though this is apparently unimportant for arguing on the Internet so let's roll with it), but I'd be massively surprised if incidences of crime in supermarkets were higher for people in helmets than hoodies. Both could be used by people who wish to conceal their identity. This to me seems far more likely a reason to want to wear helmet than all this jazz about weaponry.

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

<mod>
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.
</mod>

I wear hoodies and I'm neither violent nor a yoof!

Why did TJ get banned for constant tiresome arguing, but Cougar gets made a prefect?

Several times I've been asked to remove my hat when entering certain establishments

[tamps down tobacco]

Back in my day, a gentlemen didn't need to be told that it's rude to wear a hat indoors.

[lights pipe]

And there was a time when this would have morphed into a nice 15 page argument about helmets and rotational injuries. But no, it's all religion round here these days. [sighs]

Why did TJ get banned for constant tiresome arguing, but Cougar gets made a prefect?

Good point actually. Maybe I should ban myself for a couple of days.

Or invite TJ back, I don't mind which 🙂

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

This just means that if I ever decided to rob a bank, I'd put fake tits on and a burqa. Hence the exercise is rather futile and also rather offensive if we want to live in a secular and equal society.

As usual I rather suspect (though am prepared to be wrong) that those strongly protesting that removing ones helmet is a totally acceptable request in all circumstances are those who will not have to modify their behavior because they either don't ride or don't ride for a living/commute

As any biker knows, sometimes removing a helmet is a massive PITA and sometimes its no bother at all. Its nice to have the choice though. Any trawl through bike forums will bring up a thread on this with all the various reasons for and against.

Pretty much the only thing that irritates me on this forum is people getting all shouty about things that other people have to do and not them - whatever the reason behind it.

I for one don't use a garage if it asks me to remove my helmet because you don't need to in a garage and would always take it off in a supermarket for comfort reasons and because I know that the staff will have kittens, are not responsible for the policy but are for its enforcement and couldn't generally quantify risk if it bit them on the arse. However I've been in plenty of smaller shops for a quick chocolate bar etc and would walk out if asked to remove it.

Pretty much the only thing that irritates me on this forum is people getting all shouty about things that other people have to do and not them

To be fair, I think three_fish mentioned his own helmet at some point.

So to speak.

Personally I'd rather take it off rather than walk round a supermarket looking a low rent stig.

What if ride a DH bike to the shops and wear a FF helmet.......

Or

What if i'm going all Enduro to Tescos and wear goggles with my bike helmet do I have to take them off as well?!?!

There is nothing low rent about my helmet baby!

[img] [/img]

Back in my day, a gentlemen didn't need to be told that it's rude to wear a hat indoors.

Who's to say that someone wearing a motorbike helmet is not wearing it for a deeply held belief? What if you were a female motorcycle riding Muslim who would normally cover their face when not riding their bike and still wants their face to remain covered? People can choose what they decide to believe and the fact it might be a recognised religion doesn't and shouldn't justify it any more than any other non-religious belief.

We can go round in circles with this argument, there is no real justification either way, the reality is someone somewhere is picking and choosing what sort of face covering is acceptable and what sort isn't. At the end of the day all that really matters is if it is for security reasons, is your face is visible or not, and therefore a consistent rule should apply. So either nobody covers their face or anybody can.