BBC Breakfast TV - Helmets

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Michael MacClancy, Jun 12, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Tags:


  2. Scott Leckey

    Scott Leckey Guest

    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 protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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
    > avoided severe head injury because he was wearing a helmet' type. It's
    > obvious what the BBC's stance is on this subject.
     
  3. On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:15:16 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >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
     
  4. "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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.
     
  5. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

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

    >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.
     
  6. Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    > 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.
     
  7. "Zog The Undeniable" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > > 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.


    A fair point.
     
  8. Al C-F

    Al C-F Guest

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

    >> 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
     
  9. "Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:46:30 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> 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'?
    >


    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.
     
  10. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:15:16 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >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
     
  11. On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:02:46 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in
    message <[email protected]>:

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

    >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
     
  13. dailuggs

    dailuggs Guest

    Michael Macclan wrote:
    > 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!



    --
     
  14. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    dailuggs wrote:
    >
    > 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
     
  15. "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > dailuggs wrote:
    > >
    > > 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.
     
  16. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> dailuggs wrote:
    >>>
    >>> 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
     
  17. On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:45:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >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
     
  18. Andy Dingley

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:29:47 +0100, "Scott Leckey"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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
     
  19. On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:45:46 +0100, Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    > "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> dailuggs wrote:
    >>>
    >>> 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
     
  20. Marc Brett

    Marc Brett Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:17:53 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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.
     
Loading...
Loading...