Some updates

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

Guy, the starter spiel really comes across to me like the site is
preaching to the converted. Surely the site should be specifically
targeted at people who aren't really sure, rather than to the choir?

I'd personally suggest a less strident tone as first impressions count
for a lot, and your anger at some particularly stupid bits of very
stupid stupidity can come across as straight zealousness before you dig
into the content. But if that turns anyone off /before/ they dig into
the content then that's a reader lost.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

Guy, the starter spiel really comes across to me like the site is
preaching to the converted. Surely the site should be specifically
targeted at people who aren't really sure, rather than to the choir?

I'd personally suggest a less strident tone as first impressions count
for a lot, and your anger at some particularly stupid bits of very
stupid stupidity can come across as straight zealousness before you
dig into the content. But if that turns anyone off /before/ they dig
into the content then that's a reader lost.

Also, and at the risk of sounding overly PC....

I'm uncomfortable with the use of the term "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder"

While using the term is a nice "in-joke" for the faithful, OCD is a serious
mental illness and its jokey use can only serve to also turn off some
readers.

pk

Peter Clinch said:

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

Guy, the starter spiel really comes across to me like the site is
preaching to the converted. Surely the site should be specifically
targeted at people who aren't really sure, rather than to the choir?

I'd personally suggest a less strident tone as first impressions count
for a lot, and your anger at some particularly stupid bits of very
stupid stupidity can come across as straight zealousness before you dig
into the content. But if that turns anyone off /before/ they dig into
the content then that's a reader lost.

I am afraid I agree entirely.
It comes across as if from an obsessive.
I got lost and bored pretty soon. Sorry Guy.

What is really needed is a punchy, friendly, colourful, butlet point site
that aims to have _popular_ appeal.
It should be one that we can direct the ordinary Mums and Dads to.

John B

John B said:

What is really needed is a punchy, friendly, colourful, butlet point site
that aims to have _popular_ appeal.

Though with the wonders of Hypertext you can build any amount of extra
detail behind the bullet points for people to dig deeper if they wish
and are suitably equipped.

Quoted message said:

It should be one that we can direct the ordinary Mums and Dads to.

Indeed. And ordinary "well I can see it would be a good thing"
non-parents with a sense of public responsibility.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:19:02 +0000,

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

You have ruts (the "Now You See Me" page) in your roads Guy? I know
motor vehicles cause more damage to the roads than bikes but surely
that is over-egging the pudding. I would change that bit to tyre-tracks.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Quoted message said:

I am afraid I agree entirely.
It comes across as if from an obsessive.
I got lost and bored pretty soon. Sorry Guy.

Reaches for oar...

hehe. Having been on this newsgroup for past couple of days and I've been
reading a lot. I can certainly say that some form of OCD/zealotry is
definitely present surrounding the subject of helmet wearing. To the point
of comedy i fear... I think this group should be renamed anti.helmets.anon.

btw im not commenting on the subject of helmets... im just stating it's by
far the most talked about subject, and I agree with the previous posts that
the site http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk sounds a bit bias.

Holsters flame thrower...
-Kristian

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:20:56 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Guy, the starter spiel really comes across to me like the site is
preaching to the converted. Surely the site should be specifically
targeted at people who aren't really sure, rather than to the choir?

Probably, yes. I wrote it just after receiving the latest BeHIT
newsletter.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Kristian Davies said:

I think this group should be renamed anti.helmets.anon.

Clearly your reading comprehension lacks something, then, as none of the
regulars are anti-helmet. Please attempt to prove me wrong by pointing
to posts where the author shows an anti-helmet bias.

Quoted message said:

btw im not commenting on the subject of helmets...

Not now. You did however claim that they would be effective even if
they weren't effective. With apologies to Douglas Adams, please be
careful on any zebra crossings you may walk upon.

R.

Kristian Davies said:

I think this group should be renamed anti.helmets.anon.

<fx: wags_finger> one of the things you should have realised by now is
that most of the posters and posts characterised as "anti-helmet" are no
such thing, they are simply highlighting the actual extent (or lack
thereof) of the "problem" that helmets are widely said to be a solution
for, and the very limited extent to which they have proven capable of
being a solution even if it really was a big problem.

For example, see the chap here, wearing a helmet at
http://www.velovision.co.uk/cgi-bin/show_comments.pl?storynum=777

That'll be Guy Chapman. Does he really look "anti-helmet" there?

Quoted message said:

btw im not commenting on the subject of helmets... im just stating it's by
far the most talked about subject

And also the most grossly misunderstood. The two facts are /probably/
related.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Andy Leighton said:

You have ruts (the "Now You See Me" page) in your roads Guy? I know
motor vehicles cause more damage to the roads than bikes but surely
that is over-egging the pudding. I would change that bit to tyre-tracks.

You'd be surprised - certain bits of road on housing estates in Leeds
which see a frequent bus service have marked uneven wear in the road
surface due to said vehicles. Not quite ruts yet, but well on the way
to being so!

David Belcher

David E. Belcher said:

Andy Leighton said:

You have ruts (the "Now You See Me" page) in your roads Guy? I know
motor vehicles cause more damage to the roads than bikes but surely
that is over-egging the pudding. I would change that bit to tyre-tracks.

Quoted message said:

You'd be surprised - certain bits of road on housing estates in Leeds
which see a frequent bus service have marked uneven wear in the road
surface due to said vehicles. Not quite ruts yet, but well on the way
to being so!

IIRC Guy lives on an unadopted road that isn't maintained by the
council. I live on one of those too (well, in a house next to one...),
and it certainly develops ruts.

Not all roads conform to typical expectations: for example, if I say
"major regional UK A road" you probably wouldn't think of /this/ sort of
thing... http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/day5-1.jpg but that
really is an entirely typical bit of the A836!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

Technical stuff - check your navigation links on the bottom of pages (the
ones which try to route you to the next page). On one of them
(law-failure-2) it fires a new browser window, but the others do not.

Other comments; its very wordy rather than impact. That might be your
intent, but its not going to win a campaign.

I'm sure you've picked up the BMJ articles mentioned on BikeBiz this
morning.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:20:56 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'd personally suggest a less strident tone as first impressions count
for a lot, and your anger at some particularly stupid bits of very
stupid stupidity can come across as straight zealousness before you dig
into the content. But if that turns anyone off /before/ they dig into
the content then that's a reader lost.

Okey-dokey, first cut at a toned down version is ftping right now.
Thanks for the input, you are all (of course) absolutely right.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Kristian Davies said:

Quoted message said:

I am afraid I agree entirely.
It comes across as if from an obsessive.
I got lost and bored pretty soon. Sorry Guy.

hehe. Having been on this newsgroup for past couple of days and I've been
reading a lot. I can certainly say that some form of OCD/zealotry is
definitely present surrounding the subject of helmet wearing. To the point
of comedy i fear... I think this group should be renamed anti.helmets.anon.

Rubbish. You are confusing being anti-compulsion with being anti-helmet.

Quoted message said:

btw im not commenting on the subject of helmets... im just stating it's by
far the most talked about subject, and I agree with the previous posts that
the site http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk sounds a bit bias.

So?
Why shouldn't it be?
It can be biased towards being truthful - something the pro-compulsionists
seem to have a problem with.

My comments on the site refer to the style of writing and presentation, not
the content.

John B

Just zis Guy said:

Okey-dokey, first cut at a toned down version is ftping right now.
Thanks for the input, you are all (of course) absolutely right.

<general comments>
Looks bloody good.

<pedantic comments>
"I want to find out more" links to the non-existent domain
www.cyclehehelmets.org. hehehehelmets. He said hehehehelmets.

From the believe-children page,
"not enough" opens up another tab (in my browser) rather than doing as
all the other links do which is just changing page.

R.

"Richard richard at percival dot demon dot co dot tld for united
kingdom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<pedantic comments>
"I want to find out more" links to the non-existent domain
www.cyclehehelmets.org. hehehehelmets. He said hehehehelmets.

"Granville, when you get on that delivery bike remember your
hehehehehehelmet"
--
Cheers
the.Mark

Just zis Guy said:

Okey-dokey, first cut at a toned down version is ftping right now.
Thanks for the input, you are all (of course) absolutely right.

Guy, I generally agree with most the criticisms already made by others.
The new version is much better.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy said:

Okey-dokey, first cut at a toned down version is ftping right now.
Thanks for the input, you are all (of course) absolutely right.

IMHO quite a bit better. I'd be inclined to take out some of the
"Er..." type things, not everybody appreciates the Eye or its
particular sensit could well be my preferred "I'm not joking here,
because it isn't a laughing matter" approach when dealing with a
random Mr & Mrs. Joseph Public and their 2.2 adorably average
children/young people is too far the other way...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:

Let's try that again without the random block of missing text...

Quoted message said:

IMHO quite a bit better. I'd be inclined to take out some of the
"Er..." type things, not everybody appreciates the Eye or its particular
sense of humour, though it could well be that my preferred "I'm not joking
here, because it isn't a laughing matter" approach when dealing with a
random Mr & Mrs. Joseph Public and their 2.2 adorably average children/
young people is too far the other way...

Pete.

--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/