Silly helmet poll on BBC..

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 16/08/2006 15:40 +0100:
> jtaylor wrote:
>>> Just as well it's only a bit of fun, eh, chaps????
>>>
>> It would be interesting to find out from the pollsters what IP - and from
>> where - is producing these "hootish" results.
>
> Unfortuately, it now appears someone is doing the same thing the other
> way. :-(
>
> Tim.
>

And at a much faster rate!! Have alerted BBC Leicester and suggested
they pull the poll.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Tony Raven:
> > Unfortuately, it now appears someone is doing the same thing the other
> > way. :-(
> >
> > Tim.
> >
>
> And at a much faster rate!! Have alerted BBC Leicester and suggested
> they pull the poll.

Did you make any other suggestions while you were at it? ;-)


--
Mark, UK
"It is better to have loafed and lost, than never to have loafed at
all."

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 16/08/2006 15:46, Tony Raven said,

> And at a much faster rate!!

You'll probably find the people who are running this are thinking "Wow -
what a fantastic response!"

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

 

[burt]

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

>> Unfortuately, it now appears someone is doing the same thing the other
>> way. :-(
>>
>> Tim.
>>
>
> And at a much faster rate!! Have alerted BBC Leicester and suggested they
> pull the poll.

Did the same thing and suggested they might like to look at
cyclehelmets.org.

 

[[email protected]]

burt wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Unfortuately, it now appears someone is doing the same thing the other
> >> way. :-(
> >>
> >> Tim.
> >>
> >
> > And at a much faster rate!! Have alerted BBC Leicester and suggested they
> > pull the poll.
>
> Did the same thing and suggested they might like to look at
> cyclehelmets.org.


As the source for the thousands of bogus, automated anti votes? Capital!

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> D.M. Procida wrote:
>> > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm
>> > et_feature.shtml
>> > >
>> > > If one blocks the cookie the site tries to set then one can vote
>> > > as many times as one feels like. Vote early, vote often.
>> >
>> > Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident
>> > that the results actually mean something, just so I have a better
>> > idea what people do in fact think.
>>
>> You're a sensible and ethical person.
>>
> I wonder if the same can be said of the person responsible for shifting
> the vote from 5% pro-compulsion to 43%. The vote count is currently
> going up at about one a second, all pro-compulsion of course.

Because, of course, we know that pro-compulsion people are honest and
democratic and would never stoop to rigging a poll.

For the record, I voted (against) exactly once.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Rob Morley
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> D.M. Procida wrote:
> >> > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm
> >> > et_feature.shtml
> >> > >
> >> > > If one blocks the cookie the site tries to set then one can vote
> >> > > as many times as one feels like. Vote early, vote often.
> >> >
> >> > Don't do that. Just vote normally. I would rather be more confident
> >> > that the results actually mean something, just so I have a better
> >> > idea what people do in fact think.
> >>
> >> You're a sensible and ethical person.
> >>
> > I wonder if the same can be said of the person responsible for shifting
> > the vote from 5% pro-compulsion to 43%. The vote count is currently
> > going up at about one a second, all pro-compulsion of course.
>
> Because, of course, we know that pro-compulsion people are honest and
> democratic and would never stoop to rigging a poll.

Of course.
>
> For the record, I voted (against) exactly once.
>
Me too.

 

[Tony Raven]

Rob Morley wrote on 17/08/2006 12:12 +0100:
>
> Of course.
>> For the record, I voted (against) exactly once.
>>
> Me too.

BBC Leicester have replied with:

> Towards the beginning of the vote - Monday and Tuesday, the vote was
> evidently hijacked by people against - obviously people with the
> opinion that helmets should be worn then got involved and now since
> Wednesday late afternoon, the opposing side have been back on the
> site.
>
> I have been told that the vote has been posted on message boards to
> encourage a negative vote - perhaps for a short time this went the
> other way too - now we are heading back in the original direction.
>
> We asked the question simply to see what people thought - we are not
> using the results to prove a point either way. It has been
> interesting to hear people's opinion and I have received numerous
> e-mails like yours for people for and against.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to share yours with us.



--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote on 17/08/2006 12:12 +0100:
> >
> > Of course.
> >> For the record, I voted (against) exactly once.
> >>
> > Me too.
>
> BBC Leicester have replied with:
>
> > Towards the beginning of the vote - Monday and Tuesday, the vote was
> > evidently hijacked by people against - obviously people with the
> > opinion that helmets should be worn then got involved

It's not about people who think helmets should be worn, it's about
people who think that everyone should be compelled to wear a helmet.
There are circumstances in which I might choose to wear a helmet, but
that's my personal decision.

 

[Alex]

OK, so what would be a good set of questions:-

How about these?

I'm trying to account for all possible options, including non-cyclists,
people who want helmets banned, etc.

I'm not interested in everyone's answers. Only if you think the
questions are biased or do not cover all options.

---

This question is about what *YOU* do, not what you think other people
should do.

1. If you have a choice in the matter, do *YOU* wear a helmet when
cycling?

a) Always
b) Depends on circumstances. Sometimes do, sometimes don't.
c) Never
d) I don't cycle

(The "if you have a choice" caveat is there so that people who compete
in races where helmet use is mandatory, but never wear helmets at any
other time can answer "never").

---

2. Do you think that, for adults, the wearing of helmets whilst cycling
in public should be?

a) Made compulsory by law
b) A free choice
c) Banned by law

---

3. Do you think there should be a different rule for children? If so
what?

a) Made compulsory by law
b) A free choice for the child or parent/guardian.
c) Banned by law

4. If your answers for Q2 and Q3 are different then at what age do you
consider someone no longer a child? (youngest age obviously)

___ (age in years)

---

-Alex

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:32:19 +0100 someone who may be Rob Morley
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>It's not about people who think helmets should be worn, it's about
>people who think that everyone should be compelled to wear a helmet.

You might like to point that out to them.

It has been pointed out to them before, but they appear unable or
unwilling to accept that they are putting forward a false
proposition.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54