Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3295
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby pjclinch » 6 Dec 2018, 9:02pm

Labrat wrote:
mjr wrote:After all, say it wasn't about cycling but some other activity where helmets are worn - does the availability of helmets really make you feel keener to try it? Or do you feel more like they're a last-ditch mitigation measure?


You mean like how the introduction of seat belts and air bags has put people off driving cars?

You can see how manufacturers cover up safety features like this, and totally avoid using them as sales features for fear their customers will be put off driving one of their cars by connecting it with these last-ditch reminders of how unsafe driving is?


So if I show up in a pristine Aston Martin DB1 (no air bags, no seat belts, not even head restraints) I'll get stern lectures from bystanders about what an unsafe vehicle I'm driving? I suspect not... The culture is entirely different.

There is a significant difference between seat belts and cycle helmets. One is a lightweight bit of engineering based on a bit of polystyrene padding designed to mitigate minor injuries in a low energy crash, and the other is a pretty serious bit of engineering anchored to a hefty steel box designed to save lives in high energy impacts. The two really shouldn't be thought of in the same way as road safety interventions (but even so, read John Adams' Risk for really serious problems with safety belts, even though we can be sure that if you're having a crash your odds are better with one).

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Labrat
Posts: 144
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Labrat » 6 Dec 2018, 11:07pm

mjr wrote:I am going to ignore the false equivalence of cycle helmets with more effective measures like car seat belts and air bags.


Ok, try child seats - Freakonomics covered the questionable efficacy of child seats some time ago, but do you really think that mandatory child seats in cars has put parents off letting their kids go in the car due to it reminding them of the risk of crashing? Because that's exactly what we are claiming will happen if we make bike helmets compulsory for kids.

Do car makers still use seat belts and air bags as sales features as often as they obliquely mention something like a "five star Euro NCAP safety rating"? I think they've stopped mentioning them directly so often because they found it hurt sales. Now car adverts tend to sell a myth of driving effortlessly around deserted streetscapes.

I don't remember the last time I saw a TV advert for a car showing a seat belt or air bag being used. Do you? It's certainly nothing like as common as cycling adverts showing helmets being used.


Yep, its just that since pretty much all of them are now building thir cars to meet a five star rating they are focussing on all marketing effort their more active safety features - auto braking for example, its still absolutely using INCREASED safety as a selling fat and utterly undermines the theory that reminding people that an activity isn't entirely safe puts them off doing it.

Labrat
Posts: 144
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Labrat » 6 Dec 2018, 11:14pm

pjclinch wrote:
So if I show up in a pristine Aston Martin DB1 (no air bags, no seat belts, not even head restraints) I'll get stern lectures from bystanders about what an unsafe vehicle I'm driving? I suspect not... The culture is entirely different.


Yep, pretty much:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tbelt.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40359502


There is a significant difference between seat belts and cycle helmets. One is a lightweight bit of engineering based on a bit of polystyrene padding designed to mitigate minor injuries in a low energy crash, and the other is a pretty serious bit of engineering anchored to a hefty steel box designed to save lives in high energy impacts. The two really shouldn't be thought of in the same way as road safety interventions (but even so, read John Adams' Risk for really serious problems with safety belts, even though we can be sure that if you're having a crash your odds are better with one).

Pete.


Again, the principle being argued here is that helmets put people off cycling because they suggest to them that cycling is inherently dangerous (rather than encouraging them to cycle because its now safer than it was without) - but as pointed out, increased safety features have never put anyone off driving a car. the more safety features you build in, the more cars get sold, some companies like Volvo have made it a key point of their marketing for decades

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 11070
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby mjr » 6 Dec 2018, 11:30pm

Labrat wrote:Again, the principle being argued here is that helmets put people off cycling because they suggest to them that cycling is inherently dangerous (rather than encouraging them to cycle because its now safer than it was without) - but as pointed out, increased safety features have never put anyone off driving a car. the more safety features you build in, the more cars get sold, some companies like Volvo have made it a key point of their marketing for decades

:lol: and it's helped make Volvo Cars what it is today: the 19th-best-selling brand (9 places behind Kia) and a subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, alongside Proton and Lotus. Sorry but I don't think that's good evidence that repeatedly reminding customers about crashes is a winning marketing strategy.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Labrat
Posts: 144
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Labrat » 6 Dec 2018, 11:35pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:
mjr wrote:After all, say it wasn't about cycling but some other activity where helmets are worn - does the availability of helmets really make you feel keener to try it? Or do you feel more like they're a last-ditch mitigation measure?

Are rugby players not going to be wearing some form of headgear in the future? I have a feeling that it is called a skull cap, perhaps so as not to impart it with too many magical protective properties. Helmets for footballers have also been raised, but that was swiftly kicked into the long grass once people realised the impact that it could have on a big participation sport in a country with a health crisis due to inactivity.


American football and concussion was a huge thing for a short while... but then the marketing people found a solution:

(very wrong swearing caution)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESmgjIe-qYE

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3295
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby pjclinch » 7 Dec 2018, 8:13am

Labrat wrote:
mjr wrote:I am going to ignore the false equivalence of cycle helmets with more effective measures like car seat belts and air bags.


Ok, try child seats - Freakonomics covered the questionable efficacy of child seats some time ago, but do you really think that mandatory child seats in cars has put parents off letting their kids go in the car due to it reminding them of the risk of crashing? Because that's exactly what we are claiming will happen if we make bike helmets compulsory for kids.


Child seats in cars is just something you do. The baseline is that you'll travel by car, because that's what UK culture is, and if you've got to faff about with child seats then that's what you do. But the fundamental assumption is that your 1-2 tonne steel box is a safe place, which is why people are happy to break the speed limits while on the 'phone in it while not wearing the flameproof suits and crash helmets they'd need if they were involved in motorsport. Nobody much is under the illusion that no harm will come to them because they've got a bit of polystyrene on their head.

If we make helmets compulsory for our kids... well, we go a long way towards that because of the stark promotion and the way almost all providers of training require them. And what happens is that at primary school age they wear their helmets and use their bikes, and then when they go up to secondary school and get very, very image conscious they don't want to wear them any more, and there goes a lot of the cycling. In a parliamentary debate on helmets at some point in the past an MP related how he'd told his daughter if she didn't wear a helmet she wouldn't be allowed to cycle. She gave up cycling. I taught Bikeability 2 in a small primary school that feeds in to a large secondary school 1.5 miles away... there's far more cycling to the primary school (roll 200) than the secondary school (roll 1200).

Driving is the way we get around in the UK. Cycling is weird extra-curricular stuff for strange people. Strange people dress up in lycra and crash helmets. Over in NL cycling is just as much how you get around as driving, and people dress up the same for it. If you really think motor manufacturers will happily market any safety device to push sales, why aren't they giving away free motorsport helmets? After all, nearly half of all serious head injuries in the UK come from... car crashes.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3295
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby pjclinch » 7 Dec 2018, 8:23am

Labrat wrote:
pjclinch wrote:
So if I show up in a pristine Aston Martin DB1 (no air bags, no seat belts, not even head restraints) I'll get stern lectures from bystanders about what an unsafe vehicle I'm driving? I suspect not... The culture is entirely different.


Yep, pretty much:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tbelt.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40359502


So you think that the Queen and Prince George will be treated just like anyone else? :lol:

Labrat wrote:Again, the principle being argued here is that helmets put people off cycling because they suggest to them that cycling is inherently dangerous (rather than encouraging them to cycle because its now safer than it was without) - but as pointed out, increased safety features have never put anyone off driving a car. the more safety features you build in, the more cars get sold, some companies like Volvo have made it a key point of their marketing for decades


It's not just danger but convenience and culture too.
Look in Australia and NZ and see that cycling dropped by ~ a third after everyone was forced to wear helmets.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

mattsccm
Posts: 2381
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby mattsccm » 7 Dec 2018, 8:34am

Committed cyclists don't have any objections to helmets, if nothing else they offer a means by which one can demonstrate their commitment to cycling, thus they find it difficult to grasp that anybody else might view things differently.
Classic example of some one who has a fixed view and sees themselves in a certain way. Would the poster ide their bike without a helmet? Yes indicates commitment.

Rubbish! Helmets demonstrate a concern that the user might hit their head.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27281
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby thirdcrank » 7 Dec 2018, 9:37am

CUK is against compulsion, which implies freedom of choice. That does not imply equal promotion for both choices.

Wanlock Dod
Posts: 293
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 7 Dec 2018, 12:26pm

mattsccm wrote:Rubbish! Helmets demonstrate a concern that the user might hit their head.

Personally I hit my head far more often when I'm not riding a bike than when I am, but I don't consider there to be any need for additional protection, and neither does anybody else.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43272
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Mick F » 7 Dec 2018, 4:24pm

Wanlock Dod wrote: .........I hit my head far more often when I'm not riding a bike than when I am .................
Sorry, picking holes in this. :oops:

For me, it's not "far more often when I'm not riding a bike", it's only when I'm not riding my bike.
Mick F. Cornwall

Wanlock Dod
Posts: 293
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 7 Dec 2018, 8:23pm

Mick F wrote:
Wanlock Dod wrote: .........I hit my head far more often when I'm not riding a bike than when I am .................
Sorry, picking holes in this. :oops:

For me, it's not "far more often when I'm not riding a bike", it's only when I'm not riding my bike.

Fair point, it's the same for me too. It's OK to have holes though because they aid ventilation.

Steady rider
Posts: 2104
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Steady rider » 7 Dec 2018, 8:24pm

One question is has the editor sold us out?
It seems the CTC are still on the ball with their information.

Wanlock Dod
Posts: 293
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 7 Dec 2018, 8:30pm

Perhaps it's just a case of some elements of the editorial team not really agreeing with the policy about how cycling is displayed/presented and the importance of helmets in that, perhaps arguments about balance and representation come into play.

For sure the vast majority of enthusiasts don't seem to get why you wouldn't wear one, why should they be any different.

Jon Lucas
Posts: 223
Joined: 6 Mar 2009, 6:02pm

Re: Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

Postby Jon Lucas » 7 Dec 2018, 8:40pm

Steady rider wrote:One question is has the editor sold us out?
It seems the CTC are still on the ball with their information.


This is probably getting to the point, which is that, AFAIK (and I'm happy to be corrected on this), the CTC do not have any control over the content of the magazine, which I understand is done completely independently.