BBC Breakfast TV - Helmets

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Michael Macclan, 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. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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
     
  12. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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
     
  13. dailuggs

    dailuggs New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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
     
  17. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > berlin.de...
    >> 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
     
  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]
    > berlin.de...
    >> 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...