Silly helmet poll on BBC..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helmet_feature.shtml

..d

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.

--
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

>Get over there and give 'em what for (or what against tbe more to the
>point)..
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helmet_feature.shtml

Cycle helmets seems to be something this bit of the BBC is
promoting, whether for everyone or just children they don't say.
They helpfully give the following information for those that would
like to give them feedback.

* Tel: 0116 201 6644 or you can leave us a message out of
office hours
* E-mail:lisa....@bbc.co.uk
* By post: CSV Action Desk, BBC Radio Leicester, 9 St Nicholas
Place, Leicester. LE1 5LB.

thanks for that

Eric Martlew ;-)

I note that neither the airborne bloke at the top of the page nor the
skeleton on the bike are wearing helmets. (Maybe they've read the
research...)

--
Mark, UK
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he
was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by
examining his wives' mouths."

"to hear how a helmet can prevent you from serious injury"

"change the break pads"

Hmmm, I was rather under the impression that English was one of the
core competencies of journalists. If this is the best they can manage
then I don't hold much hope for their information on helmets.

Tim.

Oh, is that why I couldn't see the results despite clicking "No" then
"Vote" many times? ;-)

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

I wonder if this is a little sociological experiment:
set up a provocative strawman, and watch the notorious
online cycling lobby in action!

--
not me guv

I see that they have now changed break to brake. Either someone has
told them directly, or they are following the discussion here.

Indeed.

It is sad really. With the exception of the helmet crap it looks
like they have done a reasonable job of doing something on cycling.
The only major thing missing is training. However, they had to spoil
all that with the helmet crap at the start of the article. Perhaps
BSHIT are expanding their sphere of operations, or they got advice
from well known anti-cycling organisations like the Department for
Roads, police or ROSPA.

It will take rather more than BBC Radio Leicester to demonstrate how
a helmet can prevent serious injury.

BTW, I am pleased to see that http://www.bhit.org.uk brings up an
anti-BEHIT blogger. Not much on it recently, but congratulations to
whoever it is who has done it.

When I looked this morning it was 74% no. Now this afternoon it's 90%
no
Someone has been busy.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

The troops have been mobilised ;-)

..d

Except that they will also log your IP address, so they'll just report that
cyclists really are naughty.

Doesn't always tell you anything useful. Most people voting from here
(Uni of York) will come from one of four IPs.

--
Arthur Clune

They can try. However, all they are likely to get is a public IP
address, behind which could be from one to thousands of computers.

Mass media outlets want feedback, they are getting it. They might
whine if the feedback does not fit their prejudices, but so what?

Ditto - the work address has several PCs all connected through one IP
address. The multiple votes from that single IP address all came from
individual people on separate PCs, of course. ;-)

> Dunno. That's consistent with only about 37 people
> having voted "no" since this morning. Not much of
> an audience for a high-traffic website.

Something wrong with the maths there - when I looked at around 4:30 this
afternoon there were something like 1100 votes cast.

It's now like this

Vote
Should wearing a helmet when cycling be made law?
1: Yes (7%)
2: No (93%)

Total votes so far: 1186
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

And of course - famously - the world's biggest ISP-of-sorts (AOL)
has tens of millions of subscribers coming from a small pool of IPs.
Etcetera.

--
not me guv

No. It depends on the set up at the individual institution. Until about
two years ago every desktop/server here was on the net directly so had
an individual IP. Now we will go out through a set of four IPs for the
thousand or so boxen in life sci. Other institutes will be different.

..d

Well, the anti-choice lobby also inhabit this place. However, they
have yet to mobilise their supporters to provide feedback to the
BBC. Either they have few supporters, or they can't be bothered to
take part.

I note from

>I wonder if this is a little sociological experiment:

Well, the anti-choice lobby also inhabit this place. However, they

I note from http://www.bhit.org/ that "The Trust does recognise that
other organisations do not share the same view. Some of these bodies
are quick to discredit the Trust but rather than become embroiled in
any dispute and waste limited time and valuable resources, the
charity continues to focus on the issue in hand – the protection of
young cyclists." This sounds to me like not many people have rallied
to their crusade, a word I use deliberately, so they intend to
continue sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring anything
that doesn't fit in with their religion.

Does anyone know if BSHIT are still being funded by my taxes?

Bill Sornson et ilk have started a thread in rec.bicycles.tech which
concerns this; as you might expect, both the thread title and the substance
(such as it is) of their posts are not helpful towards the goal of
preventing the institution of an MHL in the UK - which sems congruent with
his situation as MHL's have been passed in his state and he did nothing, as
far as we can tell, to prevent that happening.

Do you mean this, sleazeball?

http://tinyurl.com/h6qsm

If a MHL comes up for a vote, does your lot recommend voter fraud to
achieve the desired result?

"Stuff that ballot box; victory uber alles." - Burt Raven

Insults are evidence that the person employing them has no other support.

Distorting the results of a "poll" via voter fraud is a sleazy tactic.
You condone the practice, hence the term "sleazeball" is an accurate
assessment of your character, not an insult.

HAND

Please cite where, should such conduct be occuring, I am on record as being
in favour.

>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/08/08/cycling_helm

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.

Daniele

You're a sensible and ethical person.

While I don't approve of this kind of skullduggery on either side, why
are you surprised? What goes around comes around....

That probably shows that there hasn't been much ballot stuffing up
until now. 5-10% in favour would sound sensible. The majority of people
couldn't care less either way, wont' read this page and won't bother to
vote. The majority of cyclists, regardless of whether they wear a
helmet always, occasionally, or never, will be sensible enough to let
others make their own choice. So we're really only left with the tail
of idiots.

I wonder when this idiot will stop?

Tim.

I'm not surprised, except perhaps that it took so long for someone to
start.

Meaning?

Agreed.

But think of the children. :-\

I expect they'll just leave it running until the poll closes.

Look at the first few posts in this thread.

-Alex (voted just the once)

Probably when he shuts his computer off. This looks like a automated
script rather than someone just sitting there. This is easy enough to
do for the right person, and hopefully the people running the vote will
see what's going on. The sheer number so far at over 6200 is
exceptional enough to attract attention. Rob's post was at 13:18, it is
now 14:09, and the count is still rising.

Just as well it's only a bit of fun, eh, chaps????

The pro-helmet zealots in rec.bicycles.tech are being - as usual -
inconsistent about this:

a) first claiming that such tactics (if they were employed by people who do
not want an MHL) are "sleazy"; then

b) when one of their own is actually shown to be doing this: "What a
hoot!!!!" (a USofA expression of approval).

On second thought, there's actually a wierd sort of consistency here after
all - their response to bad science which purports to show a helmet benefit
is to ignore the bad and shout the numbers.

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

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."

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

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!

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.

--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

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

Of course.

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.

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.

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

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