pjclinch wrote:Bmblbzzz wrote:I guess the problem is that if Cycle and the website stopped taking ads from holidays and events that require helmets to be worn, they'd lose quite a bit of revenue. It would also adversely (unfairly?) affect certain countries, such as Spain, Australia, NZ, Slovakia, certain US states.
It's arguable, but by my reading "All CTC rides and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets" doesn't cover ads for foreign holidays.
If it's arguable, it's badly written. Did the proposer mean (I've added some commas)
(A) All CTC rides, and events promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets ...or...
(B) All CTC rides and events, promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle do not insist on riders wearing helmets
I read it as (A) at first, only after Pete's message above did I reread it and see how it could be (B).
If the proposer had (A) in mind then I can see why CUK are against it as it would stop them having adverts for third party events eg charity rides that people might be interested in. But then there will be no pressure to change.
If the proposer had (B) in mind then the bit about "promoted by the CTC or advertised in Cycle" is surely just redundant. But even then there's problems if it was a CUK mountain biking event at a trail centre or a CUK holiday in Spain NZ Slovakia etc