more BHIT stuff

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When I finally got round to finding a browser that would let me look at BHITs website, I notice
they proudly display a 'Nationwide' logo. As an owner of Nationwide current account, savings
accounts and a mortgage, I thought I'd follow this up.

Anyone else who is a Nationwide customer may care to write to:

Mr Andrew Litchfield Community Relations Nationwide Building Society Nationwide House Pipers Way
Swindon SN38 2SN

He is apparently 'head of community relations', and I expect the same sort of stuff as goes to MPs
should go to him, but majoring on teh BHIT lies. Obviously, more weight would be behind current
customers considering becoming ex-customers, but I guess a few "I was going to become a Nationwide
customer but then I saw..." wouldn't go amiss.

However, I think if you're only going to write one letter, the one to your MP is the most
immediately urgent.

But I agree with the initiative .....

Ian Smith said:

When I finally got round to finding a browser that would let me look at BHITs website, I notice
they proudly display a 'Nationwide' logo. As an owner of Nationwide current account, savings
accounts and a mortgage, I thought I'd follow this up.

Anyone else who is a Nationwide customer may care to write to:

[...]

I did contact Nationwide some time ago. I went through the Nationwide Trust as from my understanding
of something I read on the Nationwide website all requests for funding sent to Nationwide are passed
to the Trust (an independent body.) I got an email back from the trust telling me that they did not
fund BHIT but the the Nationwide itself did. My email was forwarded to the person you gave the
details of but I got no reply. I now intend to put something in writing, my mortgage becomes very
portable in 12 months time.

As an aside, the reply I got from the Trust suggested that the factual errors in the BHIT leaflet
should be something I should take up with the BHIT rather than the Nationwide since the BHIT are
responsible for the leaflet. I think she somewhat missed my point that the Nationwide should
consider whether it funds an organisation which deliberately uses statistics in the way it does.

Colin
--

Ian Smith said:

When I finally got round to finding a browser that would let me look at BHITs website, I notice
they proudly display a 'Nationwide' logo. As an owner of Nationwide current account, savings
accounts and a mortgage, I thought I'd follow this up.

Anyone else who is a Nationwide customer may care to write to:

Mr Andrew Litchfield Community Relations Nationwide Building Society Nationwide House Pipers Way
Swindon SN38 2SN

He is apparently 'head of community relations', and I expect the same sort of stuff as goes to MPs
should go to him, but majoring on teh BHIT lies. Obviously, more weight would be behind current
customers considering becoming ex-customers, but I guess a few "I was going to become a Nationwide
customer but then I saw..." wouldn't go amiss.

However, I think if you're only going to write one letter, the one to your MP is the most
immediately urgent.

regards, Ian SMith

Thanks for posting this. I'm a long standing customer and will be writing with my objection. If we
can get enough people to do this it'll really kick bhit in the goolies. So spread the word.

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But I agree with the initiative .....

Which one? The one to systematically overstate the benefit of helmets, ensuring the maximum possible
danger from risk compensation; the one to overstate the dangers of cycling in order to scare people
off thier bikes; or the one to make it a crime to allow a child to ride a tricycle in the park
without a plastic hat, killing off the future of cycling?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FQ8Rb.229$VG3.2928703@news-
text.cableinet.net...

Quoted message said:

But I agree with the initiative .....

Which one? The one to systematically overstate the benefit of helmets, ensuring the maximum
possible danger from risk compensation; the one to overstate the dangers of cycling in order to
scare people off thier bikes; or the one to make it a crime to allow a child to ride a tricycle in
the park without a plastic hat, killing off the future of cycling?

The last one ... I disagree that it will kill off cycling. I'd bet that's what people said about the
seatbelt rule in cars. A lot of parents already enforce their children to wear helmets.

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or the one to make it a crime to allow a child to ride a tricycle in the park without a plastic
hat, killing off the future of cycling?

The last one ... I disagree that it will kill off cycling. I'd bet that's what people said about
the seatbelt rule in cars. A lot of parents already enforce their children to wear helmets.

So you think that letting children and teenagers ride bikes without helmets is so dangerous or
otherwise BAD that we have to have laws to ban it and place 200 quid fines on people who ignore it?

When you think of 11-15 year olds in off road play, the fact that they [censored] around is far more
dangerous than the fact that they don't wear lids. It would be more productive to ban all cycles
designed for off-path and cycling tricks - ie all BMXs and most MTBish bikes.

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I agree with the initiative .....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which one? The one to systematically overstate the benefit of helmets, ensuring the maximum
possible danger from risk compensation; the one to overstate the dangers of cycling in order to
scare people off thier

bikes;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or the one to make it a crime to allow a child to ride a tricycle in the park without a plastic
hat, killing off the future of cycling?

Quoted message said:

The last one ... I disagree that it will kill off cycling. I'd bet that's what people said about
the seatbelt rule in cars. A lot of parents already enforce their children to wear helmets.

Helmet rates are under 30%. Compulsory seat belts resulted in no measurable improvement in driver
injuries, but a steep rise in cyclist, pedestrian and rear-seat passenger injuries.

What is it about the UK which leads you to believe that we, uniquely, will not see a substantial
drop in cycling if a law is introduced? New Zealand had a much higher wearing rate than we did when
they introduced their law, and numbers fell by up to 40%.

Remember: this bill will make it a crime to allow a child to ride a tricycle round the park without
a plastic hat. Just exactly how much danger do you think a toddler on a toy trike experiences?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Just zis Guy said:

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BicRb.354$595.4183179@news-
text.cableinet.net...

Remember: this bill will make it a crime to allow a child to ride a tricycle round the park
without a plastic hat. Just exactly how much danger do you think a toddler on a toy trike
experiences?

Not only what Guy quotes, but it also makes the above child (or its parents) subject to a greater
fine than that levied on a hooligan riding at speed on the pavement through a shopping centre. The
former is probably putting nobody at any risk, the latter is a danger to all around them.

(£40 vs £20).

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

Colin Blackburn said:

Ian Smith said:

When I finally got round to finding a browser that would let me look at BHITs website, I notice
they proudly display a 'Nationwide' logo.

that they did not fund BHIT but the the Nationwide itself did. My email was forwarded to the
person you gave the details of but I got no reply. I now intend to put something in writing, my
mortgage becomes very portable in 12 months time.

I have specifically put a request that they justify their support to me. Twice in fact, and a sign-
off to the effect that failing to satisfactorily explain their support of an organisation with such
a cavalier attitude to truth will result in my seriously considering withdrawing my custom. We
shall see.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

When I finally got round to finding a browser that would let me look at BHITs website, I notice
they proudly display a 'Nationwide' logo. As an owner of Nationwide current account, savings
accounts and a mortgage, I thought I'd follow this up.

I'd spotted this, but as I'm in the throes of getting my first mortgage with them I thought I'd wait
until everything was signed and sealed before I raised the issue. I did think along the lines of "If
I'd given you false information to procure money from you, you'd quite rightly have thrown me out on
my ear; What makes BHIT such a special case that they are allowed to get away with it?"

Colin

NC said:

Not only what Guy quotes, but it also makes the above child (or its parents) subject to a greater
fine than that levied on a hooligan riding at speed on the pavement through a shopping centre. The
former is probably putting nobody at any risk, the latter is a danger to all around them.

Actually that would make allowing a child to ride a tricycle in the park without a plastic hat
equivalent, in terms of fines, to killing a cyclist on the open road due to acute cluelessness.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

elyob said:

The last one ... I disagree that it will kill off cycling. I'd bet that's what people said about
the seatbelt rule in cars.

I'd bet you'd lose your bet. When seatbelts were introduced we were already dependent on cars in a
car-centred culture. The same is not true of bikes. But nobody's saying it'll kill off cycling, just
that it will reduce it. And this isn't based on theorising thought experiments, this is based on
what *has already happened* in places where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced. I don't see
that just hoping we're different to Australia, Canada and NZ is enough to ensure that what happened
there won't happen here if we take a similar measure. There's a proven track record of the measure
failing to reduce anything except cycle use. Disagree all you like, but that's what *has happened*.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Colin said:

I'd spotted this, but as I'm in the throes of getting my first mortgage with them I thought I'd
wait until everything was signed and sealed before I raised the issue. I did think along the
lines of "If I'd given you false information to procure money from you, you'd quite rightly have
thrown me out on my ear; What makes BHIT such a special case that they are allowed to get away
with it?"

I'd thought of that too, but I'm saving it for round two - round one is now drafted as a single side
of A4 and I think letters of complaint or objection stand a much higher chance of being read to teh
end if they fit on one side of a single piece of paper.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Following on from Ian Smith's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Ian Smith said:

When I finally got round to finding a browser that would let me look at BHITs website, I notice
they proudly display a 'Nationwide' logo.

that they did not fund BHIT but the the Nationwide itself did. My email was forwarded to the
person you gave the details of but I got no reply. I now intend to put something in writing, my
mortgage becomes very portable in 12 months time.

I have specifically put a request that they justify their support to me. Twice in fact, and a sign-
off to the effect that failing to satisfactorily explain their support of an organisation with such
a cavalier attitude to truth will result in my seriously considering withdrawing my custom. We
shall see.

regards, Ian SMith

What about asking an awkward question at the AGM?

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business collapsed
[email hidden]

In message <[email hidden]>, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Thanks for posting this. I'm a long standing customer and will be writing with my objection. If we
can get enough people to do this it'll really kick bhit in the goolies. So spread the word.

Ditto.

--
Steve