ASA and H*****ts

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:09:46 +0100, "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I seem to remember that BHIT were taken to the ASA for claiming that helmets
were 88% effective at preventing death/injury, but I can't find anything on
their website.

The reason is that I've just come back from my local Halfrods and they had a
sign next to the helmets saying the same thing, and claiming the BMA as the
source. Anyone know if this is covered by ASA rules?

88%? Did they actually use that figure? If so, can you send me a
piccy of some sort please?

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

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:09:46 +0100, "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I seem to remember that BHIT were taken to the ASA for claiming that
helmets
were 88% effective at preventing death/injury, but I can't find anything
on
their website.

The reason is that I've just come back from my local Halfrods and they had
a
sign next to the helmets saying the same thing, and claiming the BMA as
the
source. Anyone know if this is covered by ASA rules?

88%? Did they actually use that figure? If so, can you send me a
piccy of some sort please?

If it's sunny I'll go back tomorrow with a camera. Don't be surprised if
you read about lycra lout arrested at Cribbs Causeway!

They used either the 85% or 88% figure, but I didn't note which. As I said,
they ascribe it to the BMA, but I'm not sure even the die-hards of the BMA
have repeated that in the last five years.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:18:27 +0100, "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If it's sunny I'll go back tomorrow with a camera. Don't be surprised if
you read about lycra lout arrested at Cribbs Causeway!

They used either the 85% or 88% figure, but I didn't note which. As I said,
they ascribe it to the BMA, but I'm not sure even the die-hards of the BMA
have repeated that in the last five years.

The latest briefings from the BMA board of science have been written
by BeHIT, so they might have done.

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

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:09:46 +0100, "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I seem to remember that BHIT were taken to the ASA for claiming that
helmets
were 88% effective at preventing death/injury, but I can't find anything
on
their website.

The reason is that I've just come back from my local Halfrods and they had
a
sign next to the helmets saying the same thing, and claiming the BMA as
the
source. Anyone know if this is covered by ASA rules?

88%? Did they actually use that figure? If so, can you send me a
piccy of some sort please?

Try these two, not brilliant, I'm afraid.

http://img192.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=73271_PICT0052_-_Copy_122_571lo.JPG

http://img224.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=73277_PICT0052_-_Copy_529_122_68lo.JPG

burtthebike said the following on 22/04/2008 15:14:

Quoted message said:

Try these two, not brilliant, I'm afraid.
http://img192.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=73271_PICT0052_-_Copy_122_571lo.JPG

Interesting choice of advertising on that link! Just a warning if
there's any sensitive souls about ;-)

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

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
news:Z7GdnYxOQfythZPVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@plusnet...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said the following on 22/04/2008 15:14:

Quoted message said:

Try these two, not brilliant, I'm afraid.
http://img192.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=73271_PICT0052_-_Copy_122_571lo.JPG

Interesting choice of advertising on that link! Just a warning if there's
any sensitive souls about ;-)

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

Wot advertising? I don't get any?!

burtthebike said:

I would, but if there is a previous ruling, it doesn't appear on the ASA
website, hence my original question. Was BHIT taken to the ASA and were
they found guilty of misleading advertising?

From:
http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/news/ccn74.pdf

Quoted message said:

ASA has also recently dealt with a complaint from cyclists against
BHIT, contesting false statements in a BHIT booklet. The
complaint has been 'informally resolved' by ASA, which usually
means that the advertiser has agreed to withdraw and not repeat
the assertions. There is good reason to believe that the
complaints would otherwise have been upheld.

burtthebike said the following on 23/04/2008 17:46:

Quoted message said:

Wow!! I must turn off my pop up blocker or whatever is stopping me
getting the adverts!

They're not pop-ups - those are all blocked. These are just hyperlinks
underneath the picture. What you ought to do is to not post pictures on
sites that have that sort of advertising! Maybe you don't see them
because it's you that has the account with imagevenue. Those without
accounts see the advertising.

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

On balance I think the best first step is probably to write to
Halfrauds in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger stylee pointing out that
this figure, plainly handed to them by BHIT, is false, known by BHIT
to be false, and has resulted in BHIT being shopped to ASA.

The point should be made that the figure would not stand up to
scrutiny, and Halfords should remove this material immediately to
avoid risk of bad publicity (ASA) and possibly disastrous legal
consequences if any parent of an injured child were to investigate
the claimed figure.

It is one thing for helmet promoters to make exaggerated claims,
quite another for helmet vendors to assert them as a claim of
efficacy for a product being sold.

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

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

Quoted message said:

On balance I think the best first step is probably to write to
Halfrauds in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger stylee pointing out that
this figure, plainly handed to them by BHIT, is false, known by BHIT
to be false, and has resulted in BHIT being shopped to ASA.

The point should be made that the figure would not stand up to
scrutiny, and Halfords should remove this material immediately to
avoid risk of bad publicity (ASA) and possibly disastrous legal
consequences if any parent of an injured child were to investigate
the claimed figure.

It is one thing for helmet promoters to make exaggerated claims,
quite another for helmet vendors to assert them as a claim of
efficacy for a product being sold.

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

Thanks for the advice Guy, I'll act on it as soon as I've finished my
response to SGlos's latest attempt to drive cyclists off the road.

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

burtthebike said the following on 23/04/2008 17:46:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wow!! I must turn off my pop up blocker or whatever is stopping me
getting the adverts!

Quoted message said:

They're not pop-ups - those are all blocked. These are just hyperlinks
underneath the picture. What you ought to do is to not post pictures on
sites that have that sort of advertising! Maybe you don't see them
because it's you that has the account with imagevenue. Those without
accounts see the advertising.

And the ads are probably based on your past browing history 😉

Roos

burtthebike said:

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

Quoted message said:

On balance I think the best first step is probably to write to
Halfrauds in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger stylee pointing out that
this figure, plainly handed to them by BHIT, is false, known by BHIT
to be false, and has resulted in BHIT being shopped to ASA.

The point should be made that the figure would not stand up to
scrutiny, and Halfords should remove this material immediately to
avoid risk of bad publicity (ASA) and possibly disastrous legal
consequences if any parent of an injured child were to investigate
the claimed figure.

It is one thing for helmet promoters to make exaggerated claims,
quite another for helmet vendors to assert them as a claim of
efficacy for a product being sold.

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

Thanks for the advice Guy, I'll act on it as soon as I've finished my
response to SGlos's latest attempt to drive cyclists off the road.

What are they doing now?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
("😉_("😉 I am blocking most articles posted from there.

Roos Eisma said:

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

burtthebike said the following on 23/04/2008 17:46:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wow!! I must turn off my pop up blocker or whatever is stopping me
getting the adverts!

Quoted message said:

They're not pop-ups - those are all blocked. These are just hyperlinks
underneath the picture. What you ought to do is to not post pictures on
sites that have that sort of advertising! Maybe you don't see them
because it's you that has the account with imagevenue. Those without
accounts see the advertising.

And the ads are probably based on your past browing history 😉

Roos

heh, got phorn? or rather virgin and others into a bit of a sticky mess.
most have back down i think bar BT?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
news:J8-dnZCWr41K9JLVRVnyhQA@plusnet...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said the following on 23/04/2008 17:46:

Quoted message said:

Wow!! I must turn off my pop up blocker or whatever is stopping me
getting the adverts!

They're not pop-ups - those are all blocked. These are just hyperlinks
underneath the picture. What you ought to do is to not post pictures on
sites that have that sort of advertising! Maybe you don't see them
because it's you that has the account with imagevenue. Those without
accounts see the advertising.

Well, I certainly don't have an account with imagevenue. I just asked
around work for a free image hosting website. Apologies if anyone was
offended.

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

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

Thanks for the advice Guy, I'll act on it as soon as I've finished my
response to SGlos's latest attempt to drive cyclists off the road.

What are they doing now?

The Aztec West roundabout, which is a major deterent to anyone cycling north
out of Bristol, and there are no viable alternative routes. They're doing
some improvements for the bus routes, the Greater Bristol Bus Network, and
all schemes under this heading are supposed to improve life for cyclists and
peds. If anyone can tell me how adding an extra lane to a three-lane
roundabout and extra lanes on the approaches, not to mention a complete
death trap of an ASL, I'd be grateful. This scheme goes against everything
in the Joint Local Transport Plan.

They'll probably claim it's an oversight. Having heard that excuse for
eleven years, I'm not inclined to accept it any more, especially after the
Gipsy Patch Lane utter fiasco last year.

Check out the link below for the gory details. I'd suggest going to the
SGlos website and trying to find it, but it's very well hidden and you'd
probably die of boredom first.

http://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/inovem/consult.ti/AztecWestRoundaboutbuspriority/consultationHome

On 24/04/2008 09:04, Roos Eisma said,

Quoted message said:

And the ads are probably based on your past browing history 😉

Nah - there wasn't a single advert for titanium hardtails in there ;-)

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

On 24/04/2008 18:03, burtthebike said,

Quoted message said:

http://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/inovem/consult.ti/AztecWestRoundaboutbuspriority/consultationHome

I've just had a look at the plan. Are they mad? Is it my imagination,
or have they put a dedicated cycle lane with that ASL in between two
lanes of traffic on a dual carriageway? Do they suggest how cyclists
are supposed to get into that lane in busy rush hour traffic? I see
they've also kindly put a dedicated cycle lane crossing a bus lane. So
if there's a bus coming, are cyclists expected to wait before the cycle
lane - in front of traffic trying to get off Aztec West? I never fail
to be amazed that so-called traffic planners cannot see what is
blindingly obviously stupid.

I'm glad I no longer live in S.Glos :-) (Or work at Aztec West - it was
bad enough getting out of there a dozen years ago!!)

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

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

Quoted message said:

On 24/04/2008 18:03, burtthebike said,

Quoted message said:

http://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/inovem/consult.ti/AztecWestRoundaboutbuspriority/consultationHome

I've just had a look at the plan. Are they mad? Is it my imagination, or
have they put a dedicated cycle lane with that ASL in between two lanes of
traffic on a dual carriageway? Do they suggest how cyclists are supposed
to get into that lane in busy rush hour traffic? I see they've also
kindly put a dedicated cycle lane crossing a bus lane. So if there's a
bus coming, are cyclists expected to wait before the cycle lane - in front
of traffic trying to get off Aztec West? I never fail to be amazed that
so-called traffic planners cannot see what is blindingly obviously stupid.

I'm glad I no longer live in S.Glos :-) (Or work at Aztec West - it was
bad enough getting out of there a dozen years ago!!)

Thanks for pointing out the cycle lane crossing the bus lane, I'd missed
that with all the other complete rubbish they have planned.

You may be right, I think their only option is to plead insanity. You
didn't mention the best bit about the ASL, that they plan a nice dropped
kerb from the shared use pavement so that you can ride straight out in front
of the traffic just as the lights change.

Bloody certifiable.

I've sent an extremely irritated email (three pages and that was mostly
quoting their own policies) to the consultation people, pointing out that
are failing to follow any of the policies relating to cycling, and copied it
to the Exec member for transport, who just happens to be my councillor.

But this is SGlos, where they have ignored their own policies for eleven
years, so why start following them now?

burtthebike said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 24/04/2008 18:03, burtthebike said,

Quoted message said:

http://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/inovem/consult.ti/AztecWestRoundaboutbuspriority/consultationHome

I've just had a look at the plan.

I can't find that plan anywhere, is there a link to it?

Quoted message said:

Thanks for pointing out the cycle lane crossing the bus lane, I'd missed
that with all the other complete rubbish they have planned.

The West of England Partnership are involved (read First group and some
local councils). This are the same group of morons who want to put a
guided bus route down the B2B railway path.

Quoted message said:

You may be right, I think their only option is to plead insanity. You
didn't mention the best bit about the ASL, that they plan a nice dropped
kerb from the shared use pavement so that you can ride straight out in
front of the traffic just as the lights change.

Have you ever cycled along the Ring Road "cycle path", there are several
examples which I presume are similar to this. e.g. The crossing of the
M32 exit slip road, which is light controlled for the road, but nothing
for the users of the "cycle path". If the lights change there whilst
your are crossing, you could be mixing with some very fast cars. (And
there a is very poor line of sight up the slip road.

Quoted message said:

Bloody certifiable.

I've sent an extremely irritated email (three pages and that was mostly
quoting their own policies) to the consultation people, pointing out
that are failing to follow any of the policies relating to cycling, and
copied it to the Exec member for transport, who just happens to be my
councillor.

But this is SGlos, where they have ignored their own policies for eleven
years, so why start following them now?