The Afternoon Show: Mandatory Cycle Helmets

Raam

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Raam looks a bit like Kenny Cunninham there, they make the same faces when talking!

Uhm?

kincsem

tomasrojo wrote: »

If you're really interested, I can tell you exactly how they got the 85% figure.

Thanks for the link. The percentages are complete fiction as I guessed.

I see a blackbird and it is black ..... conclusion: all birds are black. :rolleyes:

DirkVoodoo

petethedrummer wrote: »

EH?

He does! I can't find any photos though, trust me!

petethedrummer

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

He does! I can't find any photos though, trust me!

was he on telly or something? or am i missing something?

DirkVoodoo

petethedrummer wrote: »

was he on telly or something? or am i missing something?

Oh, right. Yes, he was on the afternoon show earlier talking about the football match.

Also, that presenter, total fox!

Raam

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

He does! I can't find any photos though, trust me!

You need to explain yourself, young man.

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

They are targetting the "concerned mothers" demographic, I imagine.

Yes these types of programs often have phone in polls where often the answer is blatantly obvious, I wonder why people bother ringing in. e.g. a poll would be "should paedophiles be allowed monitor schoolyards" or some such ridiculous idea. In this case most people ignorant of both sides of the argument will say "of course helmets should be mandatory", even though they probably cycled for years themselves without one, and would scoff and the idea of wearing a helmet in a car or walking home drunk- where it would rationally afford a lot more protection.

tomasrojo

If anyone is still interested, it's on now.

If you don't object to giving money to RTE, you can text your opinion to 53555

SAFETY YES if you favour mandatory helmets
SAFETY NO if you do not

Captain Havoc

Link to yesterdays how, it's 25mins in. Better than I expected from them and the presenter says she cycles every day.

tomasrojo

Lines close at five.

Newaglish

I love their vote options! SAFETY NO! Surely HELMET NO would have made more sense.

petethedrummer

where's the go and sh!te option?

alfalad

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Also, that presenter, total fox!

Pic please to confirm. Some of us don't watch the show!

Captain Havoc

Newaglish wrote: »

I love their vote options! SAFETY NO! Surely HELMET NO would have made more sense.

I can't get it up, when I click on the link for bicycle safety I get an error page.

tomasrojo

Newaglish wrote: »

I love their vote options! SAFETY NO! Surely HELMET NO would have made more sense.

It does seem to be "leading the witness".

alfalad

jerseyeire wrote: »

I can't get it up...

I did not need to know that!

Victor

Bicycling
About 75% of all bicyclists who die each year die of head injuries.
85% of head injuries in bicycle accidents can be prevented by wearing a helmet.

While head injuries may have been sustained, no helmet is going to save you when you also had your chest crushed by a concrete truck, which is the way these things tend to happen.

Captain Havoc

Coming on now in a minute link

tomasrojo

Overhwhelming support for mandatory helmets from the Afternoon Show audience: 76%, I think.

Raam

tomasrojo wrote: »

Overhwhelming support for mandatory helmets from the Afternoon Show audience: 76%, I think.

The voice of the old and the unemployed. Who listens to them anyway?

rubadub

Newaglish wrote: »

I love their vote options! SAFETY NO! Surely HELMET NO would have made more sense.

Indeed, since it could just have easily been

SAFETY NO if you favour mandatory helmets
SAFETY YES if you do not

The ignorance is astonishing.

ednwireland

vottes from a load of people who havent been on qa bike for years and think "sure i hit that cyclist but they'll be ok they have a helmet on"

i always wear a helmet but i defend the right of anyone not to (and mash their brains in the process )

tomasrojo

Crafty attempt at the end to say that motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets are equivalent. They are radically different in construction and design (and the level of protection against impact for which they are certified).

petethedrummer

Was there a dissenting voice on the programme?

tomasrojo

James Hix from the Irish Environment Network, I think it was. He was on Frontline recently.

tomasrojo

To be fair to the Afternoon Show, they did provide balance in the end, and did not run a campaign for mandatory helmets.

I must look at their other bike safety segments, especially as one has been endorsed somewhat by @jerseyeire.

RobFowl

tomasrojo wrote: »

James Hix from the Irish Environment Network, I think it was. He was on Frontline recently.

I thought he spoke quite well.
Dr Eagleson resorted to "in my experience" alot.
Have to say I pleasntly surprised at the balance (phone poll excepted). Bottom line is I'll always wear a helmet but vigourously oppose it being made mndatory.

tomasrojo

Conor Egleston performed an interesting little bit of rhetorical jiu jitsu at the end. He dismissed the whole-population evidence from Australia and New Zealand by saying that it wasn't good enough to be included in the Cochrane Review. But that review was carried out by the people who brought you ... ta da! ... the 85% figure, mentioned earlier in this thread! So those researchers are treated as arbiters of which of their critics have merit. And their response was: none of our critics has merit! 60% of the Cochrane review was made up by their own work. Including that 1989 "85%" study.

ednwireland

tomasrojo wrote: »

To be fair to the Afternoon Show, they did provide balance in the end, and did not run a campaign for mandatory helmets./QUOTE]

thats exactly what sheana said at the end of yesterdays segment (lets make this a campaign for mandatory helmets - if i remember right)

tomasrojo

Really? I didn't know that. That's not really their concern, starting campaigns that court "unforeseen consequences" (such as increased obesity, reduced cycling, increased car dependence).