Remove your helmet

[mstriumph]

I'm reasonably confident that every robber who has worn a helmet has also worn trousers. Should we offer to remove those also?

do you realise, it's gonna take me at LEAST a week to get that awful mental image out of my mind????

[Waxxa]

I have a Flip-face helmet and have had no problems at my local servo or anywhere for that matter in NZ, though I can understand with full-face helmets that the servos' would ask you to remove it.

I had a trip recently to Australia and man, they are 'anal' about helmets at servos' over there...you are under no illusions to 'Remove your Helmet'.

[MarkH]

droves? so far we are talking about 50 people country wide.

Really? How do you figure that number? If the service station chain has a policy that pisses off a number of bikers then I would imagine that even a couple of percent of bikers = many more than 50 people.

Or have you somehow decided that anyone that doesn't bitch in this thread could not possibly be pissed off enough to change petrol stations that they frequent?

Let us say that Mobil instigated a policy that every delivery of fuel must be pre-paid - no exceptions. How many customers would they lose, especially bikers? If you piss off your customers you will make your competitors VERY happy!

[mynameis]

I'm glad we cleared that one up, if you use a service station for haircuts god knows what you do at a barber's.

At the Barber you'd be getting a Perm Douglas

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqz9eJiBa_Q[/youtube]

[ManDownUnder]

Perhaps some of the issue is in the manner of asking?

Perhaps it is.

Perhaps a significant part of the issue is also in the fact helmets have an ongoing use use as a disguise for those wanting to rob the place. I think asking someone to remove a helmet on those grounds is quite fair enough - and (dare I even hint at) being thoughtful enough to anticipate the wants of the petrol station and voluntarily taking off our lids might even speed the whole transaction due to a lack of any conversation along the lines of the one that somehow managed to get out of hand in the opening post of this thread.

We could take advantage of the most convenient petrol station instead of having to go out of our way to "teach them a lesson" when it might just be us that needs to take 5 second look at what we're doing and consider that it might just be upsetting to others.

So, from a courtesy point of view the question is whether the brief transaction of paying for petrol should be classified as social interaction. It seems doubtful.

So you're saying I can be take it as a right to be discourteous to anyone serving me, or only those transaction that are brief in nature? In which case you can fuck off.

I've never really understood what the big deal is. A few robber type persons have worn helmets. So? More wear hoodies or beanies or balaclavas. And as folk have noted, in most cases the bona fides of the customer are not in doubt.

I'm reasonably confident that every robber who has worn a helmet has also worn trousers. Should we offer to remove those also?

Piss poor example - but I'll run with it. If trousers were sometimes used to obfuscate the identity of wearers who had it in mind to rob the place... yes.

And to extend that argument... doesn't an employer have a responsibility to staff to minimise exposure to foreseeable danger? And given that you accept that robbers use helmets in order to best effect their theivery on occasion... and it's entirely possible for any motorcyclist to remove their helmet... isn't a policy of asking for helmets to be removed the prudent thing to do...

... in which case shouldn't we as the wearers anticipate and accommodate those wants?

What is really so hard about it? I fail to see what the challenge is.

[Crasherfromwayback]

What is really so hard about it? I fail to see what the challenge is.

You'll never convince those that are too cool...too tough...or too rude and or lazy they're wrong. No matter how well you point out the obvious.

[ManDownUnder]

You'll never convince those that are too cool...too tough...or too rude and or lazy they're wrong. No matter how well you point out the obvious.

I guess I need to accommodate morons too then dammit..

[SARGE]

Bit of a difference...Police 5 does not normally show criminals in Bhurkas....

show me video of someone robbing a liquor store or petrol station in a helmet




i'll give $100 to the first man who robs a dairy wearing a Bhurka


win/win

[Ixion]

Perhaps it is.


So you're saying I can be take it as a right to be discourteous to anyone serving me, or only those transaction that are brief in nature? In which case you can fuck off.

No. I am saying that it is debateable whether not removing ones helmet/hat/beanie/hood/sunglasses etc should be considered discourteous in the context of the short and impersonal transaction. I see no real difference between a helmet and a hat or cap. If it is discourteous to address someone wearing a helmet, it is equally discourteous to address them wearing a hat, or beanie, or cap.

If you drive into a car park and there is an attendant taking the fees (I'm thinking of showgrounds and such where the dude in the white coat ambles up to collect as you drive/ride in ) , do you remove your helmet before handing him your money, and riding on? If not, where is the difference?

Piss poor example - but I'll run with it. If trousers were sometimes used to obfuscate the identity of wearers who had it in mind to rob the place... yes.

And to extend that argument... doesn't an employer have a responsibility to staff to minimise exposure to foreseeable danger? And given that you accept that robbers use helmets in order to best effect their theivery on occasion... and it's entirely possible for any motorcyclist to remove their helmet... isn't a policy of asking for helmets to be removed the prudent thing to do...

... in which case shouldn't we as the wearers anticipate and accommodate those wants?

What is really so hard about it? I fail to see what the challenge is.

In fact, I am unconvinced that helmets are indeed used to obfuscate the identity of petrol staion robbers. Has there EVER been an example of someone roibbing a petrol station in NZ wearing a helmet? I suspect there will have been many more cases of robers wearing hoodies, caps and sunglasses etc. So if the robbery motive were the real reason one would expect to see signs forbidding the latter also (as I believe is often the case in the UK).

[dpex]

Can anyone spot the irony in this post?

Nar. Seemed a bit 'Coppery' to me.

[dpex]

Piss poor example - but I'll run with it. If trousers were sometimes used to obfuscate the identity of wearers who had it in mind to rob the place... yes.

Ah! But you see, trousers are the preferred method of Harley riders to obfuscate their other 'short-comings'

[steve_t]

No. I am saying that it is debateable whether not removing ones helmet/hat/beanie/hood/sunglasses etc should be considered discourteous in the context of the short and impersonal transaction. I see no real difference between a helmet and a hat or cap. If it is discourteous to address someone wearing a helmet, it is equally discourteous to address them wearing a hat, or beanie, or cap.

Huh? You think that wearing a hat/cap/beanie and wearing a helmet are the same? With the hat etc, you can see the person's face. I don't disagree that it's rude to keep your sunglasses on when talking to someone, especially when inside their shop - unless you're outside in bright sunlight and you'd otherwise be squinting at them.

If you drive into a car park and there is an attendant taking the fees (I'm thinking of showgrounds and such where the dude in the white coat ambles up to collect as you drive/ride in ) , do you remove your helmet before handing him your money, and riding on? If not, where is the difference?

The car park attendant is in a locked booth. I guess it doesn't help them if you have a gun. The parking attendant probably doesn't have hundreds of dollars in his till for you to steal.

In fact, I am unconvinced that helmets are indeed used to obfuscate the identity of petrol staion robbers. Has there EVER been an example of someone roibbing a petrol station in NZ wearing a helmet? I suspect there will have been many more cases of robers wearing hoodies, caps and sunglasses etc. So if the robbery motive were the real reason one would expect to see signs forbidding the latter also (as I believe is often the case in the UK).

I can't disagree here. I haven't heard of any robberies with people wearing helmets. It would be stupid as you'd be reducing your field of vision and you wouldn't be able to hear as well. HOWEVER, the fact is that when someone is wearing a helmet, you can't see any part of their face using a security camera. The places asking you to remove your helmet are just being cautious.

Not any kind of analogy but I wonder how many motorists get fired up about being asked to turn off their engine when filling with petrol, or asked to not talk on their cell phones, or smoke. They've surely done it hundreds of times before without any problems...

[FJRider]

I'm reasonably confident that every robber who has worn a helmet has also worn trousers. Should we offer to remove those also?

As I am reasonably confident, that if you go into a gas station with your pants at your knees... no-one will have any idea what you look like. Helmet or no helmet. Because no-one will be looking at your face...

although you may be given (at worst) a sympathy card ...

[Ragingrob]

You'll never convince those that are too cool...too tough...or too rude and or lazy they're wrong. No matter how well you point out the obvious.

Pretty hard to convince them when all you do is ignore all the arguments we are making and make personal inferences rather than any further arguments yourself.

show me video of someone robbing a liquor store or petrol station in a helmet




i'll give $100 to the first man who robs a dairy wearing a Bhurka


win/win

Motorcycling is my religion, servos are therefore being openly racist towards me.


I quite like Ixion's trouser example... Much easier to conceal a gun in your trousers than in a helmet, pretty dangerous stuff!

And yep how many cases have there been if any of a robber wearing a helmet? Especially one riding a bike with his wallet out and in full bike gear? How can they enforce something with no precedent?

As has already been said... Eftpos at pumps solves all.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Pretty hard to convince them when all you do is ignore all the arguments we are making and make personal inferences rather than any further arguments yourself.

.

How many new ones have you come up with knobjob?