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

[LinusR]

A new low. The latest Cycle mag features a child on the front cover with - YES! - a plastic hat on. Worse still it illustrates an article about family cycling in the Netherlands - the destination of choice for lidless, sandal-wearing ideologues like myself. Not only is Cycling UK promoting polystyrene "protection", it is shaming parents into having to fork out the extra cash to buy the damn things and participate in an enviro-crime because polystyrene is not commonly recycled, according to Google. Add to that - it is that time of year when parents are under extreme pressure to spoil their offspring. They could not have picked a worse cover photo! I've cycled since the mid- 1960s from age two years and I never wore a h*****. It's not done me any harm. Nurse!

[thirdcrank]

It's not even on correctly.

[Cunobelin]

cycle-mag-dec-jan.jpg
A new low. The latest Cycle mag features a child on the front cover with - YES! - a plastic hat on. Worse still it illustrates an article about family cycling in the Netherlands - the destination of choice for lidless, sandal-wearing ideologues like myself. Not only is Cycling UK promoting polystyrene "protection", it is shaming parents into having to fork out the extra cash to buy the damn things and participate in an enviro-crime because polystyrene is not commonly recycled, according to Google. Add to that - it is that time of year when parents are under extreme pressure to spoil their offspring. They could not have picked a worse cover photo! I've cycled since the mid- 1960s from age two years and I never wore a h*****. It's not done me any harm. Nurse!

Problem is that these are in fact adverts for ignorance

The image shows a badly fitted helmet, poorly adjusted strap and the helmet is "flat aback"

It is yet another demonstration of how "wearing a helmet" is misunderstood.

This helmet as worn can unequivocally be said to increase this child's risk of injury

[anniesboy]

Surely it is down to the parents as to whether a child wears a helmet or not.

I really don't care if someone decides not to use a helmet,but please don't go around lecturing to those that do.

[LollyKat]

Surely it is down to the parents as to whether a child wears a helmet or not.

I really don't care if someone decides not to use a helmet,but please don't go around lecturing to those that do.

While I agree in principle, it is concerning that it tacitly endorses a helmet fitted so badly as to be more likely to cause serious injury in the event of a fall.

[Oldjohnw]

I'm not sure how a picture of a little boy is endorsing anything. The related article is a lovely story which shows thebenefits of cycling.

I'm personally agnostic about the subject. The level of criticism of this boy and his family seems to me quite out of proportion: the fit, how it sits on his head, the material, the strap.... Why not condemn the colour? And his choice of tee shirt? Perhaps we could credit the family for making a choice based on the evidence they had. It might not be your or my choice. It is theirs.

[mjr]

I'm not sure how a picture of a little boy is endorsing anything. The related article is a lovely story which shows thebenefits of cycling.

The related article may be great, but the picture conveys a rather bad message. Isn't that why they wouldn't use a photo of the little boy smoking a joint to promote cycling in the Netherlands?

I'm personally agnostic about the subject. The level of criticism of this boy and his family seems to me quite out of proportion: the fit, how it sits on his head, the material, the strap.... Why not condemn the colour? And his choice of tee shirt?

As far as we know, the colour and choice of T-shirt don't have much effect, while the poor fit and usage are safety problems and the material is an environmental problem.

Perhaps we could credit the family for making a choice based on the evidence they had. It might not be your or my choice. It is theirs.

Perhaps CUK should be helping provide the family (and other similar ones) with the evidence needed to make choices less likely to harm their child, rather than publicising their choice as if it does no harm?

[mjr]

I really don't care if someone decides not to use a helmet,but please don't go around lecturing to those that do.

Cool. How about "Cycle" not lecturing to those that don't by the near-total domination of such images in its pages?

[Cyril Haearn]

Beautiful replica cycling team jerseys are available for children but it might be best not to show Jupiter or Watneys (beer) or Brooklyn (chewing gum) or Molteni (sausages) or Renault (motors)

Would a picture of the child riding have been better? Does anyone here know the editor? Maybe an advisory committee could help choose pictures to avoid complaints

[thirdcrank]

This doesn't need yet another helmet debate IMO, but it does seem incongruous to have a cover photograph like this which highlights an inside story about family cycling in the Netherlands where helmet wearing rates are reported to be very low.

Perhaps it's evidence of the lobbying power of the helmet lobby.
=============================================================================
PS I could imagine a family of dedicated helmet-wearers deciding that this is just the holiday for them and learning the hard way.

[roubaixtuesday]

Perhaps it's evidence of the lobbying power of the helmet lobby.

Or, evidence that a really cute picture of a happy young child enjoying cycling is considered ideal for the front cover of a cycling magazine. Just a suggestion.

[pwa]

As a disinterested observer I wonder whether the CUK membership might be heading to a schism on this topic, with unhappy lidless members chucking their cards in the bin.

[Cyril Haearn]

Plus One for happy children

[thirdcrank]

... Or, evidence that a really cute picture of a happy young child enjoying cycling is considered ideal for the front cover of a cycling magazine. Just a suggestion.

Had this been elsewhere, I'd not have given it a thought, a misunderstanding about cycling in the Netherlands by some ignoramus - there are editors who believe helmets are compulsory - but Dan Joyce seems clued-up on everything to do with this subject. Had this been on some Dutch mag peddling carefree cycling holidays in the UK I could have seen irony, even in the child's laughter.

On its own the picture could be explained as part of some policy of showing balance - a mixture of wearers and non-wearers - but in context it seems incongruous.

[PH]

Perhaps CUK should be helping provide the family (and other similar ones) with the evidence needed to make choices less likely to harm their child, rather than publicising their choice as if it does no harm?

The family in this case are Cass Gilbert, partner Nancy, his sister who has mobility issues and his son featured on the cover. I doubt there's any information you or Cycling UK could provide that he wasn't already aware of, the photos with the story show Cass and Nancy without helmets and the others with, seems like they've made their choices. Why not ask him why? He's contactable via his website which is well worth a look anyway
http://www.whileoutriding.com/