BBCi hates cyclists?

[Chris Malcolm]

"Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> writes:

>martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>:> I agree; I was thrown off my folding bike at 12mph head first into the base of a steel lamppost
>:> on an exceptionally badly designed cycle path in Croydon. The result:slightly dented hat; major
>:> concussion.Anyone care to try same without a hat? Did we not have this argument with motor cycle
>:> helmets in the 70's?

>2) This is also the sort of accident that experienced cyclists don't tend top have, not least cos
> we avoid shite bike paths.

I think cycle paths encourage silly behaviour by risk compensation,
i.e., in this case the paths are felt to be safe, so the cyclists behave like idiots. I probably
spend 90% of my bike time on fairly congested urban roads, 10% on cycle paths. I think I see a
bicycle accident about once every few years on the road, and several a year on bike paths. Most
of those I see on bike paths are due to cyclists being very silly, e.g. cycling right off the
path while looking backwards at a girl, falling off trying to hand a drink can to a fellow
cyclist, toppling over when stopping because wearing a huge heavy rucksack, falling off because
not noticing the brick in the middle of the path, falling in tangled heap because riding much
too close to friend, falling off trying to cycle too quickly through piles of bikes abandoned on
their sides (apparently the fashionable way for kids to "park"), etc..
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:23:00 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:

>I think cycle paths encourage silly behaviour by risk compensation,
>i.e., in this case the paths are felt to be safe, so the cyclists behave like idiots.

Also they self-select idiots: more experienced cyclists are less likely to use them, being aware
that the roads are geenrally safer and quicker.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Tony W]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:23:00 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote:
>
> >I think cycle paths encourage silly behaviour by risk compensation,
> >i.e., in this case the paths are felt to be safe, so the cyclists behave like idiots.
>
> Also they self-select idiots: more experienced cyclists are less likely to use them, being aware
> that the roads are geenrally safer and quicker.

Harsh. They self select the inexperienced and those lacking in confidence -- who may well have a
greater propensity to fall off.

There may also be some risk compensation -- not having a high chance of getting a juggernaut up the
jacksey certainly reduces my concerns about falling.

Then, of course, there are the terminally stupid ----

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:39:54 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >I think cycle paths encourage silly behaviour by risk compensation,
>> >i.e., in this case the paths are felt to be safe, so the cyclists behave like idiots.

>> Also they self-select idiots:

>Harsh. They self select the inexperienced and those lacking in confidence

I was reusing the original term, but yes it is inexperience more than idiocy.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Richard Burton]

"Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ni" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:42:36 +0100, "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On a visit to the BBCi website to make sure that they had dropped the
> crass
> > >story about P*** S*****'s impotence, I looked at their new NBW page. Contacts for Sustrans and
> > >NBW webpages, but not the national cycling organisation the CTC! They also have a health page,
> > >dedicated to
cycling
> > >this week, with lots of contacts, but not the CTC!? see
> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/features/cycling.shtml
> >
> > I see a link to CTC website at the bottom of this page.
>
> After three days of ringing the Beeb, I finally got put through to the
right
> person for the health page, who was charming and was quite willing to put
in
> a link to the CTC today, the 18th. I have had the electronic response
from
> the emails I have sent, but nothing else. And I still haven't been able
to
> get the right person for the weather site on the phone; this morning I was refered to the Beeb
> inquiry service, and they didn't know either, but took my number and promised someone would ring
> me back. Would anyone out there care to wager a large sum of money on whether someone did ring
> me back?
>
> If anyone else wants to try, the Beeb inquiry line is on 08700 1002222,
and
> the best of luck.

Just had an electronic reply about the lack of CTC contact on their webpages:

"The BBC's Charter and Agreement allow it independence from political pressure and the licence fee
gives it independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. The BBC is not
allowed under the terms of its Charter to actively promote political parties or activities"

So that's it, the CTC is a political party. I'll be voting for them at the next election.

>
> cheers
>
> Rich

 

[James Hodson]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:28:00 +0100, Daniel Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

>James Hodson wrote:
>>
>> True. "100,000 cyclists travelled safely to work this morning and they have all have just
>> impregnated their wives." wouldn't exactly be stop-press hot news.
>>
>

So maybe that siren call most of us regularly hear is, in fact, a compliment.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:27:11 +0100, "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"The BBC's Charter and Agreement allow it independence from political pressure and the licence fee
>gives it independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. The BBC is not
>allowed under the terms of its Charter to actively promote political parties or activities"

Might be worth pointing ut to them that there is a precedent in that other news sites have linked to
the CTC, that the CTC is not affiliated to or a contributor to any political party or organisation,
and that it is botht eh oldest and the largest cyclists' organisation in Britain. It was the
progenitor of the Caravan Club - they might like to reflect on whether this offspring, perhaps the
Provisional CTC, is also a political organisation?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Pauline]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:27:11 +0100, "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"The BBC's Charter and Agreement allow it independence from political pressure and the licence
> >fee gives it independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. The BBC is
> >not allowed under
the
> >terms of its Charter to actively promote political parties or activities"
>
> Might be worth pointing ut to them that there is a precedent in that other news sites have linked
> to the CTC, that the CTC is not affiliated to or a contributor to any political party or
> organisation, and that it is botht eh oldest and the largest cyclists' organisation in Britain. It
> was the progenitor of the Caravan Club - they might like to reflect on whether this offspring,
> perhaps the Provisional CTC, is also a political organisation?
>

The BBC news site is quite happy to link to pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and
Greenpeace who are by definition political so their 'excuse' for ignoring the CTC doesn't stand up.

[OT] I wonder why the CTC is a ltd company instead of a charity when it doesn't seem to be
political at all?

 

[John Blake]

In message id <[email protected]> on Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:27:11 +0100,
Richard Burton wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

>
>Just had an electronic reply about the lack of CTC contact on their webpages:
>
>"The BBC's Charter and Agreement allow it independence from political pressure and the licence fee
>gives it independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. The BBC is not
>allowed under the terms of its Charter to actively promote political parties or activities"
>
>So that's it, the CTC is a political party. I'll be voting for them at the next election.

Surely they are as political as the AA or the RAC. They represent the interests of a particular
group. I expect in the interest of equality that there are no links to the motoring organisations.

--
I don't do arguments, read the reply properly to get the context. Kind regards. If you want to take
it to email remove THE SPAM BLOKA

 

[Graeme]

"Pauline" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bcuv4n$klm$1 @titan.btinternet.com:

> [OT] I wonder why the CTC is a ltd company instead of a charity when it doesn't seem to be
> political at all?
>

I don't know if the CTC was a charity previously, but I think there was some sort of change in the
law/regulations in the last couple of years. I know of several sporting organisations which changed
to limited companies recently, perhaps to give themselves an element of protection if sued?

Have fun!

Graeme

 

[John'S Cat]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:43:29 -0000, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Pauline" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bcuv4n$klm$1 @titan.btinternet.com:
>
>> [OT] I wonder why the CTC is a ltd company instead of a charity when it doesn't seem to be
>> political at all?
>>
>
>I don't know if the CTC was a charity previously, but I think there was some sort of change in the
>law/regulations in the last couple of years. I know of several sporting organisations which changed
>to limited companies recently, perhaps to give themselves an element of protection if sued?
>

Can't it be both? I used to be on the board of an arts centre that was a charuty and also a company
limited by guarantee.

 

[Anthony Campbel]

In article <[email protected]>, Graeme wrote:
> "Pauline" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bcuv4n$klm$1 @titan.btinternet.com:
>
>> [OT] I wonder why the CTC is a ltd company instead of a charity when it doesn't seem to be
>> political at all?
>>
>
> I don't know if the CTC was a charity previously, but I think there was some sort of change in
> the law/regulations in the last couple of years. I know of several sporting organisations
> which changed to limited companies recently, perhaps to give themselves an element of
> protection if sued?
>
> Have fun!
>
> Graeme

Being a limited company does not prevent an organization from being a charity. It provides
protection for the trustees/board members, who would otherwise be personally liable for the
organization.

AC

--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

 

[Jeremy Parker]

I don't know if the CTC was a charity previously, but I think there was
>some sort of change in the law/regulations in the last couple of years. I know of several sporting
>organisations which changed to limited companies recently, perhaps to give themselves an element of
>protection if sued?
>

As I understand it the CTC has a subsidiary that is a charity, so it cAn get the appropriate tax
advantages etc. when it does charitable things, but is still free to do non charitable things

Jeremy Parker

 

[Ni]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:00:24 +0100, "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>After three days of ringing the Beeb, I finally got put through to the right person for the health
>page, who was charming and was quite willing to put in a link to the CTC today, the 18th.

Thanks for bringing it to their attention Richard.

 

[Graeme]

Anthony Campbell <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Being a limited company does not prevent an organization from being a charity. It provides
> protection for the trustees/board members, who would otherwise be personally liable for the
> organization.
>

Yeah, I probably picked it up wrongly there. It was a while back that the Scottish Canoe Association
changed to a limited company from a something or other (not sure if it was a charity, think it
probably wasn't). At the time they sent out a whole load of blurb saying that a lot of similar
organisations were doing this for various good reasons and could we please vote yes. I ticked the
yes box and sent it back like a good little paddler.

Have (charitable) fun!

Graeme