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.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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 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.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

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.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

Michael Macclan 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.
--
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.

Nathaniel Porter said:

"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.

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

Tony

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.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

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:[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.

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.