Thinking aloud R4, the reprise

Bryan said:

Start of the program had a whole thing about all the emails that flooded
in about the 'joke'. Woth a listen, particulalry if you emailed, (which
quite a few here did).

Well, he got the message.
Unfortunately he did not begin to understand it.
TerryJ

Quoted message said:

Well, he got the message.
Unfortunately he did not begin to understand it.
TerryJ

The message was wrong. It should have been about cycling being a safe
activity - safer than walking per mile[1]. Instead he seemed to have got
lots of 'helmets don't work' stuff.

In reve

[1] search for 'passenger death rates' on www.statistics.gov.uk

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:17:15 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Mark
Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, he got the message.
Unfortunately he did not begin to understand it.

The message was wrong.

That is one possibility. However, there are other possibilities.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 12 Jul 2006 13:34:09 -0700 someone who may be [email hidden]
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Well, he got the message.
Unfortunately he did not begin to understand it.

I suggest people contact the programme again. Here is my effort.

================================================================

The sort of apology this week about the stupid "joke" made by your
presenter a week ago was a good start.

However, Mr Taylor doesn't seem to have learnt very much from the
experience. The fact is that in absolute and relative terms head
injury rates for cyclists are lower than those for pedestrians and
car occupants. Cycling is at least as safe as these activities. Thus
the singling out of cyclists uniquely as people who should wear
helmets is curious. Perhaps you would like to ponder this and make
it the subject of a future programme?

Mr Taylor wondered why this subject caused more reaction than
programmes on a list of other subjects, including racism. He might
like to ponder whether singling out cyclists because of their mode
of transport bears some comparison with racism.

Cyclists are having their freedoms taken away by people who are
usually not cyclists. Why on earth are you surprised that this
causes great anger amongst some cyclists?

================================================================

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Quoted message said:

Cyclists are having their freedoms taken away by people who are
usually not cyclists. Why on earth are you surprised that this
causes great anger amongst some cyclists?

Genius idea. The above paragraph could do with mentioning the Martlehat
laws etc, making it clear that people are trying to make it illegal to ride
a bicycle without a helmet.

Quoted message said:

However, Mr Taylor doesn't seem to have learnt very much from the
experience. The fact is that in absolute and relative terms head
injury rates for cyclists are lower than those for pedestrians and
car occupants. Cycling is at least as safe as these activities. Thus
the singling out of cyclists uniquely as people who should wear
helmets is curious. Perhaps you would like to ponder this and make
it the subject of a future programme?

Mr Taylor wondered why this subject caused more reaction than
programmes on a list of other subjects, including racism. He might
like to ponder whether singling out cyclists because of their mode
of transport bears some comparison with racism.

Cyclists are having their freedoms taken away by people who are
usually not cyclists. Why on earth are you surprised that this
causes great anger amongst some cyclists?

I think you put it very well
TerryJ

David Hansen said:

On 12 Jul 2006 13:34:09 -0700 someone who may be [email hidden]
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Well, he got the message.
Unfortunately he did not begin to understand it.

I suggest people contact the programme again. Here is my effort.

FWIW, I replied yesterday as follows:

OK, since you read out my message from last week (albeit in
a tone of voice I'd never have used), I'll try again.

Why do you get so much more mail on this than on the Big Issues
that are the bread and butter of Radio 4?

I'd suggest that's because the people who mail you expect that
you'll be familiar with the arguments surrounding the big issues.
I could, for example, have written on the environment, and told
you that I choose to own two bicycles and no car (despite
living in rural West Devon, and having a clean license). But that
would just be reiterating an extremely familiar argument, and I'd
expect to be ignored.

What generated the big response was a subject on which
(a) People expected you not to be familiar with the issues,
so we have something *new* to tell you.
(b) People feel *threatened* by misinformation. In this instance,
the potential threat comes from a campaign (run by non-cyclists)
for a mandatory helmet law, and more seriously from insurance
companies "trying it on" when an accident happens (see
cyclehelmets.org).

There is a history of ill-considered provision made "for" cyclists
(for example, bike lanes which are often worse than useless)
that lead us to want to correct misinformation before it leads
to serious damage. How much time and effort did it take to
correct the misiformation in the MMR scare?

For what it's worth, when I last fell off my bike in 2004, I was able
to control my fall, and walk the eight miles or so home. Had I been
wearing a helmet, my head would have been far too big to avoid
hitting the rocks, and I might have suffered injuries - at worst
a broken neck. Maybe you should put that against the "helmet
saved my life" anecdotes. Of course none of these anecdotes
are significant in population or policy terms. But since your role
is to inform and educate, maybe you should use it in the interest
of balance!

--
not me guv

Laurie Taylor's apology was mealy-mouthed. He still doesn't understand
the helmet argument, he was just surprised by the voluminous and
vehement response to his thoughtless prattle. So much for 'Thinking
Allowed'.

NB London cyclists: www.timeout.com/competition/cyclingsurvey closes
today
- have a go, mailexpire email address might be useful.

Nick Kew said:

David Hansen said:

On 12 Jul 2006 13:34:09 -0700 someone who may be [email hidden]
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Well, he got the message.
Unfortunately he did not begin to understand it.

I suggest people contact the programme again. Here is my effort.

FWIW, I replied yesterday as follows:

OK, since you read out my message from last week (albeit in
a tone of voice I'd never have used), I'll try again.

Why do you get so much more mail on this than on the Big Issues
that are the bread and butter of Radio 4?

I'd suggest that's because the people who mail you expect that
you'll be familiar with the arguments surrounding the big issues.
I could, for example, have written on the environment, and told
you that I choose to own two bicycles and no car (despite
living in rural West Devon, and having a clean license). But that
would just be reiterating an extremely familiar argument, and I'd
expect to be ignored.

What generated the big response was a subject on which
(a) People expected you not to be familiar with the issues,
so we have something *new* to tell you.
(b) People feel *threatened* by misinformation. In this instance,
the potential threat comes from a campaign (run by non-cyclists)
for a mandatory helmet law, and more seriously from insurance
companies "trying it on" when an accident happens (see
cyclehelmets.org).

There is a history of ill-considered provision made "for" cyclists
(for example, bike lanes which are often worse than useless)
that lead us to want to correct misinformation before it leads
to serious damage. How much time and effort did it take to
correct the misiformation in the MMR scare?

For what it's worth, when I last fell off my bike in 2004, I was able
to control my fall, and walk the eight miles or so home. Had I been
wearing a helmet, my head would have been far too big to avoid
hitting the rocks, and I might have suffered injuries - at worst
a broken neck. Maybe you should put that against the "helmet
saved my life" anecdotes. Of course none of these anecdotes
are significant in population or policy terms. But since your role
is to inform and educate, maybe you should use it in the interest
of balance!

--
not me guv

grannyhalfstep wrote on 14/07/2006 12:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Laurie Taylor's apology was mealy-mouthed. He still doesn't understand
the helmet argument, he was just surprised by the voluminous and
vehement response to his thoughtless prattle. So much for 'Thinking
Allowed'.

Perhaps it should be retitled "Thinking Allowed but not happening" ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On 14 Jul 2006 04:30:23 -0700 someone who may be "grannyhalfstep"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Laurie Taylor's apology was mealy-mouthed. He still doesn't understand
the helmet argument, he was just surprised by the voluminous and
vehement response to his thoughtless prattle. So much for 'Thinking
Allowed'.

That is a good point. I hope you have made it to the programme.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

I didn't bother, I know too well what they are like. The R4 complaints
prog (Feedback?) has one or two producers' insincere apologies on it
every week. Listeners complain about the insincerity of these apologies
(the producers normally go straight back to repeating whatever they
were apologising about), and their complaints about these about this
arrogance is brushed off where it is even mentioned.

David Hansen said:

On 14 Jul 2006 04:30:23 -0700 someone who may be "grannyhalfstep"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Laurie Taylor's apology was mealy-mouthed. He still doesn't understand
the helmet argument, he was just surprised by the voluminous and
vehement response to his thoughtless prattle. So much for 'Thinking
Allowed'.

That is a good point. I hope you have made it to the programme.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54