The Ministry of Truth speaks

[Tony W]

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >The only line that could be seen as anti helmet is the last bullet point in 1. Write Now -- "You
> >can add that efforts to force
up
> >helmet wearing rates have never been shown to reduce either the risk or severity of cyclists'
> >casuualties, and in many cases has made them
worse".
> >I'm not pro helmet but I thought that a little contentious.
>
> That's more than a little contentious - it's hype - just as much as the
imagery
> of the DfT site is hype.

No -- its a reasonably accurate summary of several reasonably authoritative pieces of research. I
find it contentious because the argument is best kept to pro choice.

T

 

[Tony W]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> You're not serious are you? No, I think you are. Your true colours as a closset pro-helmet zealot
> are peeping out.

Nothing closset about Helen's pro helmet position. She states it proudly and not unconvincingly. She
is, however, pro choice in the matter (though her genetic inheritance (aka son) may not find he is
included in the choice thing!!

T

 

[John B]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:

> >Oh yes, "the roads are no place for cyclists".
>
> Cr*p -

So you don't beleive that may be a hidden agenda of some factions of the government and DfT? There
are many groups who would like to see cyclists removed from the roads.

> as are the rest of your comments on my views regarding helmets.

You may disagree with my interpretation of your views but that's hardly being constructive. I'm
surprised.

John B

 

[Ian Smith]

On 30 May 2003, wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have no problem opposing the hype of the DfT site. But the CTC campaign seems to go beyond the
> bad imagery & hype of the DfT site, countering it by saying helmets are a bad thing

Where? I can't find that statement in my copy of the flier.

> - which they are not.

Which some people believe they are not. Others disagree. Your statement is no less disengenuous than
the statements you object to.

> This is not a pro-choice stance, it's an anti-helmet stance that is being used to counteract the
> imagery of the DfT site.

I think you must have received a different flier than I did. Mine is roundly anti-this-campaign, but
that's the whole point - they're not saying anything pro or anti helmet, just anti compulsion and
anti this specific campaign.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Danny Colyer]

John B asked Helen:
> Are you sure you really are 'pro-choice'? Your response here makes me feel you are not Perhaps you
> should revisit your own views on the matter.

From Helen's past posts, I am satisfied that she is as pro-choice as anyone here. However, she is
also extremely pro-helmet.

I have observed over the years that the more strongly pro-helmet someone is, the more likely they
are to regard someone who expresses scepticism about their benefits as anti-helmet. The DfT
report on helmet effectiveness is a good example, with the authors repeatedly mentioning the
"anti-helmet group".

The CTC flyer takes a position of healthy scepticism regarding the merits of helmets, and I'm not
really surprised that someone as pro-helmet as Helen would see this as anti-helmet. I see it as
open minded.

I would hesitate to describe Helen as closed minded on the issue, though she has clearly made up her
mind that any cyclist with any sense will wear a helmet and she is unlikely to be dissuaded from
that viewpoint any time soon. Helen's happy wearing a helmet every time she rides - if her mind was
closed on the issue I suspect she would become one of those people who expects what works for her to
work for everyone and she would cease to be pro-choice.

No, where Helen's mind is really closed is on the issue of bib-shorts ;-) <ducks>

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[John B]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> John B asked Helen:
> > Are you sure you really are 'pro-choice'? Your response here makes me feel you are not Perhaps
> > you should revisit your own views on the matter.
>
> From Helen's past posts, I am satisfied that she is as pro-choice as anyone here. However, she is
> also extremely pro-helmet.
>

As one who is 100% pro-choice, but verging towards the antis I see that.

>
> I have observed over the years that the more strongly pro-helmet someone is, the more likely they
> are to regard someone who expresses scepticism about their benefits as anti-helmet.

Quite.

>
> The CTC flyer takes a position of healthy scepticism regarding the merits of helmets, and I'm not
> really surprised that someone as pro-helmet as Helen would see this as anti-helmet.

It does seem to be a common trait amongst those who wish to impose compulsion on others (no Helen I
don't mean you).

> I see it as open minded.

That's the way I read it too. It was good to see the CTC at last taking a public stand.

> I would hesitate to describe Helen as closed minded on the issue,

OK, but the statement that it says "helmets are a bad thing" was like a red rag to a bull, although
it has yet to be clarified and several other posters have also asked the same.

> No, where Helen's mind is really closed is on the issue of bib-shorts ;-) <ducks>
>

I'd hate to imagine the fury of the PSF, if the CTC came out and said "Bib Shorts are good" ;-)

John B

 

[John B]

Tony W wrote:

>
> Nothing closset about Helen's pro helmet position. She states it proudly and not unconvincingly.
> She is, however, pro choice in the matter (though her genetic inheritance (aka son) may not find
> he is included in the choice thing!!
>

Children certainly colour one's view, sometimes making one feel slightly hypocritical. (I speak as a
parent of 8 pedalling legs).

John B

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 29 May 2003 19:38:59 +0100, "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I see that the CTC is now campaigning against this site. When my copy of Cycle arrived this morning
>there was an A4 flyer in the front showing one of the X-ray images from the site and stressing the
>importance of getting the site removed.

I may or may not have seen that before publication, following a possible conversation with
Roger Geffen, but I absolutely deny that any such conversation or subsequent exchange of emails
took place.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 23 May 2003 15:08:40 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>Colin, coming late as usual.

I hear they can cure that as well these days...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 30 May 2003 14:21:58 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>efforts to force up helmet wearing rates have never been shown to reduce either the risk or
>severity of cyclists' casuualties, and in many cases has made them worse". I'm not pro helmet but I
>thought that a little contentious.

No, I think you'll find that it's factually accurate. It was *very* carefully drafted.

It's fairly clear that the CTC are alluding in particular to the Australian situation here. The
injury rate among children in Victoria, for example, increased by 60% following helmet compulsion
[source: memory; but it's of that order I think]. The problem is that reports like the ones the DfT
like mark all head injuries as being caused by lack of helmets, and any increase in injuries as a
result of helmet promotion as being coincidence.

The same was found with compulsory seat belts - but with a rather more pernicious effect, as the
jump in injuries was experienced by rear passengers, pedestrians and cyclists. The Government are
very good at saying "this measure would save these specific deaths" and ignoring the surrounding
evidence of extra accidents which may be caused by the measure itself; they can quantify the one and
not the other, and it allows them to maintain the illusion of "doing something about the problem"
without actually doing anything about the problem (bad driving).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Danny Colyer]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I may or may not have seen that before publication, following a possible conversation with
> Roger Geffen, but I absolutely deny that any such conversation or subsequent exchange of emails
> took place.

It occurred to me that the CTC had probably been alerted to the site by a member, and I certainly
had an idea of who that member might have been ;-)

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:43:23 +0100, "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It occurred to me that the CTC had probably been alerted to the site by a member, and I certainly
>had an idea of who that member might have been ;-)

Actually they told me about it when I asked about a related matter. They are well ahead of the game
on this, and also I think worked with John Franklin on his rebuttal of the DfT report.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Andrew Chadwick]

On Fri, 30 May 2003 14:21:58 +0100, Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> The CTC response came across not just as anti the DfT web site, but came across as anti-helmet.
>
> I don't think it is. The only line that could be seen as anti helmet is the last bullet point in
> 1. Write Now -- "You can add that efforts to force up helmet wearing rates have never been shown
> to reduce either the risk or severity of cyclists' casuualties, and in many cases has made them
> worse". I'm not pro helmet but I thought that a little contentious.
>
> It is, surely, arguing that cycling without a helmet is better than not cycling at all.

I don't think so - that bullet point describes the observed effects of campaigns promoting the
wearing of helmets, not the effects of wearing helmets (or even the effects of increased helmet
wearing per head, or per mile).

But yes, the two assertions made by the last clause stood out to me too at first reading. Has
anybody managed to figure out what mechanisms they're talking about there?

Regards,

--
Andrew Chadwick