Oh dear

lardyninja said:

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1999258.ece

Warning: Contains h*lm*ts

LN

So he thinks that the anti-drink-drive campaigns have been successful?

David

lardyninja said:

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1999258.ece

Wears helmet, rides like a f***wit.

Wonderful example for cycling.

I suppose the usual suspects will put him right..

...d

lardyninja said the following on 21/11/2006 13:06:

Quoted message said:

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1999258.ece

This is in the motoring column? Dunno who James Daley is, but he
obviously isn't a cyclist. Whilst a helmet may protect against minor
bumps and scrapes, surely the solution is to solve the problem at source
i.e, the "dangerous inner-city roads.", as Mr Daley puts it. He forgot
to mention that detail!

The Dutch have it right - basically, if you hit a cyclist it's your fault.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

The Indie seems to have two or three different writers in this slot.
One of them sounds like he knows what he's talking about, the other two
sound like complete idiots.

I've given up on them, and can't be @rsed to argue with them any more.

Trouble is, the only other paper I'd buy is the Grauniad (although for
a ong time I wouldn't even touch it thanks to the Sarah Tisdall
affair), and my other half brings that home every day.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:55:05 +0000

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

The Dutch have it right - basically, if you hit a cyclist it's your
fault.

Please don't spread that kind of FUD. It's not fault, it's
responsibility. That is to say, the responsibility of being
in charge of a deadly weapon.

--
not me guv

Nick Kew said the following on 21/11/2006 16:05:

Quoted message said:

Please don't spread that kind of FUD. It's not fault, it's
responsibility. That is to say, the responsibility of being
in charge of a deadly weapon.

I wasn't really concerned about over-complicating my simple statement.
This group seems far too keen on semantics over content.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

I have been cycling in London for 40 years (as of this summer) I have
never ever worn a cycle helmet. I don't like them. But Mr Daley -
whoever he is - makes what will seem to a lot of people a reasonable
case.

He demolishes the notion which I often rely on in arguments that
studies show compulsory helmet laws make cycling less polular. Is he
right in what he says about the introduction of the law in Australia?
Does anybody here know the facts of this and where those facts might be
published?

This is a genuine question not an attempt to rehash the old
rationalisations of either side.
Thanks
Dave

lardyninja said:

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1999258.ece

Warning: Contains h*lm*ts

LN

lardyninja said:

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1999258.ece

Have you read his diatribe against bromtons

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1941356.ece

Martin

Dim Dave said:

He demolishes the notion which I often rely on in arguments that studies
show compulsory helmet laws make cycling less polular. Is he right in
what he says about the introduction of the law in Australia? Does anybody
here know the facts of this and where those facts might be published?

Try reading all the way through this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org
You will find pointers to and critiques of research showing both that
helmets are good, and that they are bad. Then make up your own mind.

Mike

Dim Dave wrote on 21/11/2006 18:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling in London for 40 years (as of this summer) I have
never ever worn a cycle helmet. I don't like them. But Mr Daley -
whoever he is - makes what will seem to a lot of people a reasonable case.

He demolishes the notion which I often rely on in arguments that studies
show compulsory helmet laws make cycling less polular. Is he right in
what he says about the introduction of the law in Australia? Does
anybody here know the facts of this and where those facts might be
published?

There are so many factual errors in his article it is difficult to know
where to start but no, he is wrong about Australia. If you want to read
up about it then http://www.cyclehelmets.org covers it all including the
evidence and counter-evidence from Australia.

--
Tony

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

David Martin wrote on 21/11/2006 13:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I suppose the usual suspects will put him right..

Letter sent but don't rely just on the usual suspects. Volume will get
the editors attention with a greater chance of something getting published.

--
Tony

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

lardyninja said:

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1999258.ece

Warning: Contains h*lm*ts

LN

It irks me is that they can spout this rot without any reference to the
facts; other than to dismiss them with a slip of the pen where they
happen to disagree with their own agenda.

Clearly the piece is written for the benefit of the 'misandrically -
misogynistic' motoring public and has nothing to do with cycling, and
doubtless it will appeal to their sense that they hold the moral high
ground.

Pish and balderdash...rot of the first order and not worth the print.

Editor should be shot for printing the thing.

Sniper8052

Tony Raven said:

David Martin wrote on 21/11/2006 13:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I suppose the usual suspects will put him right..

Letter sent but don't rely just on the usual suspects. Volume will get
the editors attention with a greater chance of something getting published.

I have sent a note. It was rather hard to find a suitable email address
to which to send it so it went to j.daley features and motoring at
independent.co.uk

...d

Quoted message said:

--
Tony

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

Following on from Tony Raven's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Dim Dave wrote on 21/11/2006 18:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I have been cycling in London for 40 years (as of this summer) I have
never ever worn a cycle helmet. I don't like them. But Mr Daley -
whoever he is - makes what will seem to a lot of people a reasonable case.

He demolishes the notion which I often rely on in arguments that studies
show compulsory helmet laws make cycling less polular. Is he right in
what he says about the introduction of the law in Australia? Does
anybody here know the facts of this and where those facts might be
published?

There are so many factual errors in his article it is difficult to know
where to start but no, he is wrong about Australia. If you want to read
up about it then http://www.cyclehelmets.org covers it all including the
evidence and counter-evidence from Australia.

Surely this is within the remit of the Press Complaints Commission.

A list of errors doesn't have to go into detail just a reference to the
appropriate section in www.cyclehelmets.org.

If the editor doesn't fess-up then complaining is easy.

The first item of the Code Of practice is given below.

Free and easy, but I don't have the rebuttal matters at my finger tips.

From www.pcc.org.uk :
Code of Practice

1 Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once
recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and -
where appropriate - an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the exam marking business failed
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

David Martin wrote on 21/11/2006 21:06 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I have sent a note. It was rather hard to find a suitable email address
to which to send it so it went to j.daley features and motoring at
independent.co.uk

[email hidden]

--
Tony

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

Peter Fox wrote on 21/11/2006 22:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Surely this is within the remit of the Press Complaints Commission.

They will note it was in the Comment section and therefore they have met
the requirement (iii)

--
Tony

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

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 21/11/2006 20:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Clearly the piece is written for the benefit of the 'misandrically -
misogynistic' motoring public

ITYMTS he had been lobbied by BsHIT and being a lazy* journalist, had
swallowed their spiel hook line and sinker and then regurgitated it. It
must be more than coincidence this comes out at a time Be Hit are
getting active again.

* you don't really think he went and found out all those "facts" for
himself do you?

--
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 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:08:53 +0000

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Nick Kew said the following on 21/11/2006 16:05:

Quoted message said:

Please don't spread that kind of FUD. It's not fault, it's
responsibility. That is to say, the responsibility of being
in charge of a deadly weapon.

I wasn't really concerned about over-complicating my simple
statement. This group seems far too keen on semantics over content.

The semantics here are rather important. If you say "fault", you're
propagating the Daily Mail style "EU anti-motorist nonsense" argument.

- "the motorist is presumed responsible" is a reasonable proposition.
- "the motorist is presumed at fault" isn't. But it's a sitting-duck
target for the motoring lobby to say how hard-done-by they are, and
how obviously stupid it is to make them responsible.

--
not me guv

Peter Clinch said the following on 22/11/2006 09:36:

Quoted message said:

But they really /are/ important, or you just invite people to not take
you seriously.

I don't think I've ever asked people to take me seriously :-)

Life's too short!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/