BBC Breakfast TV - Helmets

The BBC is the quintessential pinky "sheeple's" news outlet.
The safety Nazis have taken over: Hammers have to be rubber;
knives blunt; furniture balsa wood. All of this cobblers is
purveyed with that "dying cow" facial expression and the
"Who will save our children?" tone.

Yuck.

My stance? "Helmets yes, compulsion no."

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

Quoted message said:

Breakfast had a feature on cycle helmets this morning. It
featured Angie Lee dropping eggs onto tarmac. The vast
majority of viewer emails and texts were of the 'my little

Johnnie

Quoted message said:

avoided severe head injury because he was wearing a
helmet' type. It's obvious what the BBC's stance is on
this subject.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:15:16 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Breakfast had a feature on cycle helmets this morning. It
featured Angie Lee dropping eggs onto tarmac and someone
from the Reading Cycling Campaign whose own views were
too balanced to counter the pro-compulsion emphasis of
the piece.

Unfortunately I was in London, otherwise that would have
been me...

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

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

Quoted message said:

It's obvious what the BBC's stance is on this subject.

I would suggest they are simply representing public opinion,
and that as the public are ill-informed on the subject most
of them swallow the BHIT line.

I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the BBC (or
anyone else) to misrepresent public opinion, regardless of
whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing or not.

Michael MacClancy said:

Breakfast had a feature on cycle helmets this morning. It
featured Angie Lee dropping eggs onto tarmac and someone
from the Reading Cycling Campaign whose own views were too
balanced to counter the pro-compulsion emphasis of the
piece. By the way, if you break your leg it can be fixed,
if you break your head it can't. One further observation
... other than the footage of youngsters doing cycle
training all of the pictures of (adult) cyclists were of
helmetless cyclists. Strange that no comment was made about
this. The vast majority of viewer emails and texts were of
the 'my little Johnnie avoided severe head injury because
he was wearing a helmet' type. It's obvious what the BBC's
stance is on this subject.

I thought the broadcast was particularly well balanced.

It gave the views of the pro compulsion lobby.

Then it gave the views of the anti compulsion lobby.

It discussed the arguments of people at the time when
compulsory seat belt wearing was being discussed.

Nathaniel Porter said:

I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the BBC (or
anyone else) to misrepresent public opinion, regardless of
whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing or not.

But the majority of the public (including Swamp Monster and
Martlew, I suspect) doesn't ride bikes, therefore a minority
is being oppressed by a majority to whom it should really be
no concern, but whose views differ.

Representing public opinion (or at least the audience's
opinion) is what rabble-rousing papers like the Express
do. Shock horror stealth tax asylum seeker single mother
kind of thing.

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:40cb23b1.0@entanet...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the BBC
(or anyone else)

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

misrepresent public opinion, regardless of whether this
is a "good" or

"bad"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing or not.

But the majority of the public (including Swamp Monster
and Martlew, I suspect) doesn't ride bikes, therefore a
minority is being oppressed by a majority to whom it
should really be no concern, but whose views differ.

Representing public opinion (or at least the audience's
opinion) is what rabble-rousing papers like the Express
do. Shock horror stealth tax asylum seeker single mother
kind of thing.

A fair point.

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

obvious what the BBC's stance is on this subject.

I would suggest they are simply representing public
opinion, and that as the public are ill-informed on the
subject most of them swallow the BHIT line.

Isn't it in their charter to 'educate and inform'?
--

Cheers,

Al

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

obvious what the BBC's stance is on this subject.

I would suggest they are simply representing public
opinion, and that as

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

public are ill-informed on the subject most of them
swallow the BHIT

line.

Quoted message said:

Isn't it in their charter to 'educate and inform'?

Yes (and they did go at least some way to that by reporting
the anti- lobby's concerns, although I would agree they
could have done more [although this may be the fault of the
anti- lobby for not providing a spokesperson for a sound
byte or that they didn't make their point well, or something
like that]).

But if they are going to report on public opinion (which
is basically what reading out viewers emails is), they
should take a representative sample of the letters in
order to accurately represent public opinion - otherwise
it would be biased.

Ideally of course they'd have a longer report detailing the
arguments for and against - but that would eat into
resources and broadcasting time, and would be difficult to
justify for a relatively minor issue like helmet compulsion.

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:15:16 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Breakfast had a feature on cycle helmets this morning. It
featured Angie Lee dropping eggs onto tarmac and someone
from the Reading Cycling Campaign whose own views were
too balanced to counter the pro-compulsion emphasis of
the piece.

Unfortunately I was in London, otherwise that would have
been me...

i would have like to have seen a professional spokesperson
from one of the national cycling organisations or even from
the trade. Where were the CTC?

John B

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:46:30 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I would suggest [BBC] are simply representing public
opinion, and that as the public are ill-informed on the
subject most of them swallow the BHIT line.

Their job is to inform the public, not to go along with ill-
informed and mischievous propaganda.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:02:46 +0100, JohnB <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

i would have like to have seen a professional spokesperson
from one of the national cycling organisations or even from
the trade. Where were the CTC?

The Beeb specifically asked for someone else, AIUI, because
the piece was the Swamp Monster's response to the BBC's
effrontery in allowing Roger Geffen to put a balanced view
after the Martlew Debate.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Michael Macclan
Breakfast had a feature on cycle helmets this morning. It
featured Angie Lee dropping eggs onto tarmac and someone
from the Reading Cycling Campaign whose own views were too
balanced to counter the pro-compulsion emphasis of the
piece. By the way, if you break your leg it can be fixed, if
you break your head it can't. One further observation ...
other than the footage of youngsters doing cycle training
all of the pictures of (adult) cyclists were of helmetless
cyclists. Strange that no comment was made about this. The
vast majority of viewer emails and texts were of the 'my
little Johnnie avoided severe head injury because he was
wearing a helmet' type. It's obvious what the BBC's stance
is on this subject.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "They never open their
mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
- Thomas Brackett Reed www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

sure i heard on that report that 3000 cyclists were killed each year aswell, when im dur the figure i read in a paper lately was 2 a day, which is 730 a year, not 3000 a year!

dailuggs said:

sure i heard on that report that 3000 cyclists were killed
each year aswell, when im dur the figure i read in a paper
lately was 2 a day, which is 730 a year, not 3000 a year!

3000 is road deaths, cyclist deaths are around 130 a year
IIRC

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

dailuggs said:

sure i heard on that report that 3000 cyclists were
killed each year aswell, when im dur the figure i read
in a paper lately was 2 a day, which is 730 a year, not
3000 a year!

3000 is road deaths, cyclist deaths are around 130 a
year IIRC

The stat claimed on the report was 3000 cyclists killed or
injured. I don't know how accurate this is.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:45:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The stat claimed on the report was 3000 cyclists killed or
injured. I don't know how accurate this is.

I think it's about right - just don't inquire too closely
about how serious the injuries are (most are trivial) or
how many ar head injuries (under half, IIRC) or how many of
the head injury deaths and serious injuries could be
prevented by helmets (most optimistic plausible estimate
being about 10%).

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2j1831Frk5aoU1@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

dailuggs said:

sure i heard on that report that 3000 cyclists were
killed each year aswell, when im dur the figure i read
in a paper lately was 2 a day, which is 730 a year, not
3000 a year!

3000 is road deaths, cyclist deaths are around 130 a
year IIRC

The stat claimed on the report was 3000 cyclists killed or
injured. I don't know how accurate this is.

That's about right for killed or seriously injured but
killed is only around
130.

Tony

Scott Leckey said:

The BBC is the quintessential pinky "sheeple's" news
outlet.

Do you mind ? I'm the quintessential tomato (looks green,
but turns red when allowed to ripen) and I neither bleat,
nor own a TV.

Remember - if you ever laughed at a comedy carrot back in
the '70s, you share the collective guilt for encouraging
Enid Rancid and her "Any child with a blowlamp" hysteria.

--
Smert' spamionam

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2j1831Frk5aoU1@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

dailuggs said:

sure i heard on that report that 3000 cyclists were
killed each year aswell, when im dur the figure i read
in a paper lately was 2 a day, which is 730 a year, not
3000 a year!

3000 is road deaths, cyclist deaths are around 130 a
year IIRC

The stat claimed on the report was 3000 cyclists killed or
injured. I don't know how accurate this is.

Yes, it was quoted as 3000 killed or injured. The report
seemed to be trying to be balanced but it needed someone
with a better soundbite to balance the Swampmonster's views.
Also, Bill Turnbull waded in (outside the report) with a
stupid off the cuff remark about the number of serious head
injuries seen in casualty units as a result of people not
wearing helmets.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "A modest little person,
with much to be modest about."- Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

Also, Bill Turnbull waded in (outside the report) with a
stupid off the cuff remark about the number of serious
head injuries seen in casualty units as a result of
people not wearing helmets.

Since most injuries in casualty are from drinking, we'd
get better results if pub-crawlers were made to wear
bike helmets.