BBC helmets bull**** again

Some time ago, I requested the BBC R4 prog "More or Less" to examine
the case for cycle helmets, as they had done some very significant
demolition jobs on other misuses of statistics. I was agreeably
surprised to find that they took up my suggestion and helmets were
featured on their programme today. Listen again at
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?q=mor...%2Fdefault.stm

The helmet bit starts at about 12' 30" in.

Silly me! This is the BBC, which appears to have taken a policy
decision to promote cycle helmets, but I'd be surprised if they would
admit it. The prog is supposed to be a "Magazine show investigating
the ways we use numbers, statistics and measurements." except in the
case of cycle helmets apparently.

They interviewed Angie Lee of BHIT, completely pro-helmet of course,
and Dr Ian Walker, who appeared to be ambivalent. No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets. Not a single statistic was
quoted. The dichotomy between the helmet proponents' evidence and pro-
choice people's evidence was not examined.

The BBC has sunk to a new low, has gone through the bottom of the
barrel and is halfway to New Zealand.

On 27 Aug, 19:15, burtthebike wrote:
Some time ago, I requested the BBC R4 prog "More or Less" to examine
the case for cycle helmets, as they had done some very significant
demolition jobs on other misuses of statistics. *I was agreeably
surprised to find that they took up my suggestion and helmets were
featured on their programme today. *Listen again athttp://search.bbc.co..uk/search?q=more+or+less+helmet&Search=Search&ur...

The helmet bit starts at about 12' 30" in.

Silly me! *This is the BBC, which appears to have taken a policy
decision to promote cycle helmets, but I'd be surprised if they would
admit it. *The prog is supposed to be a "Magazine show investigating
the ways we use numbers, statistics and measurements." except in the
case of cycle helmets apparently.

They interviewed Angie Lee of BHIT, completely pro-helmet of course,
and Dr Ian Walker, who appeared to be ambivalent. *No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets. *Not a single statistic was
quoted. *The dichotomy between the helmet proponents' evidence and pro-
choice people's evidence was not examined.

The BBC has sunk to a new low, has gone through the bottom of the
barrel and is halfway to New Zealand.

Sorry, shorter link here http://tinyurl.com/358uz42

Also, the presenter was grossly biased as he wore a helmet because he
thought they worked.

"burtthebike" wrote in message
...
. No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets.

Wot!

I am forever told on here that no one is against helmets!

Shock, horror! You mean there are such people!

pk

On Aug 27, 7:15*pm, burtthebike wrote:
Some time ago, I requested the BBC R4 prog "More or Less" to examine
the case for cycle helmets, as they had done some very significant
demolition jobs on other misuses of statistics. *I was agreeably
surprised to find that they took up my suggestion and helmets were
featured on their programme today. *Listen again athttp://search.bbc.co..uk/search?q=more+or+less+helmet&Search=Search&ur...

The helmet bit starts at about 12' 30" in.

Silly me! *This is the BBC, which appears to have taken a policy
decision to promote cycle helmets, but I'd be surprised if they would
admit it. *The prog is supposed to be a "Magazine show investigating
the ways we use numbers, statistics and measurements." except in the
case of cycle helmets apparently.

They interviewed Angie Lee of BHIT, completely pro-helmet of course,
and Dr Ian Walker, who appeared to be ambivalent. *No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets. *Not a single statistic was
quoted. *The dichotomy between the helmet proponents' evidence and pro-
choice people's evidence was not examined.

The BBC has sunk to a new low, has gone through the bottom of the
barrel and is halfway to New Zealand.

Translation, 'bugger, they did not come to the conclusions I wanted'

pk wrote:

I am forever told on here that no one is against helmets!

More like you're forever asked who they are. And either can't or
won't come up with an answer.

Shock, horror! You mean there are such people!

Perhaps Burt is one. Do you think he constitutes a "brigade"?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

webreader wrote:

Translation, 'bugger, they did not come to the conclusions I wanted'

Compare and contrast the depth of the statistical criticism in the
(unrelated) first part of the programme with that of the segmnet on
helmets.

No, they didn't come to the conclusion /I/ wanted, but then they
didn't show much evidence of having looked at much of the evidence
I happen to know is there. Which is odd, as people were
interviewed for the programme who provided considerably more
information than was discussed.

At least they didn't come to the conclusion it's a no-brainer.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
pk wrote:

I am forever told on here that no one is against helmets!

More like you're forever asked who they are. And either can't or won't
come up with an answer.

Shock, horror! You mean there are such people!

Perhaps Burt is one. Do you think he constitutes a "brigade"?



pyromancer is/was another.

pk

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT), burtthebike
wrote:

snip


Also, the presenter was grossly biased as he wore a helmet because he
thought they worked.



I am sorry - are you saying that they don't?

Have you a reference to some research which shows that they "don't
work"?


--

The BMA view of helmets:


The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.
The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

burtthebike wrote:
Some time ago, I requested the BBC R4 prog "More or Less" to examine
the case for cycle helmets, as they had done some very significant
demolition jobs on other misuses of statistics. I was agreeably
surprised to find that they took up my suggestion and helmets were
featured on their programme today. Listen again at
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?q=mor...%2Fdefault.stm

The helmet bit starts at about 12' 30" in.

Silly me! This is the BBC, which appears to have taken a policy
decision to promote cycle helmets, but I'd be surprised if they would
admit it. The prog is supposed to be a "Magazine show investigating
the ways we use numbers, statistics and measurements." except in the
case of cycle helmets apparently.

They interviewed Angie Lee of BHIT, completely pro-helmet of course,
and Dr Ian Walker, who appeared to be ambivalent. No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets. Not a single statistic was
quoted. The dichotomy between the helmet proponents' evidence and pro-
choice people's evidence was not examined.

The BBC has sunk to a new low, has gone through the bottom of the
barrel and is halfway to New Zealand.

Let's be clear.

You asked the BBC to devote part of a "More Or Less" edition to the issue of
cycle helmets.

You must have had your reasons for that.

You are against the (compulsory, and probably voluntary) use of cycle helmets.

You must have thought that "More Or Less" would support your thinking on the
topic - otherwise, why make the request you made?

It didn't support your views.

Ever been had?

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:30:46 +0100, pk wrote:

"burtthebike" wrote in message
news:31c14b20-a77c-4539-b7e3-
...
. No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets.

Wot!

I am forever told on here that no one is against helmets!

Shock, horror! You mean there are such people!

pk

I'm sure there are, but many of us who don't wear helmets are not so much
anti-helmet as anti-compulsion, and remain unconvinced of their
effectiveness at preventing serious injury.

--
Alex