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: 3687
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

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

Postby pjclinch » 28 Nov 2018, 9:18pm

brynpoeth wrote:When I was young (nearly) all children learned to cycle, do fewer learn now?


I think they largely learn to cycle (when I taught Bikeability in a local school we'd get almost everyone on board, and that's Level 2 where you can already ride but are learning how to use the roads).

What you seem to get much less of, however, is kids using bikes to roam and explore. Cycling seems to be a thing you do either in the immediate neighbourhood of home or as an organised thing with the family all going to a park or similar. When I was a sprog I'd go out either on my own or with friends and roam relatively far and wide and explore.
Cycling to high school was a very significant means of getting there (I walked as it only round the corner, but otherwise I'd have cycles and many of my friends did) but that's quite unusual these days.

So in summary I think they learn but it's more of a toy (a good toy, but still a toy) than a means of getting around.

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

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 398
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

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

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 28 Nov 2018, 9:32pm

pjclinch wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:When I was young (nearly) all children learned to cycle, do fewer learn now?


I think they largely learn to cycle (when I taught Bikeability in a local school we'd get almost everyone on board, and that's Level 2 where you can already ride but are learning how to use the roads).

What you seem to get much less of, however, is kids using bikes to roam and explore. Cycling seems to be a thing you do either in the immediate neighbourhood of home or as an organised thing with the family all going to a park or similar. When I was a sprog I'd go out either on my own or with friends and roam relatively far and wide and explore.
Cycling to high school was a very significant means of getting there (I walked as it only round the corner, but otherwise I'd have cycles and many of my friends did) but that's quite unusual these days.

So in summary I think they learn but it's more of a toy (a good toy, but still a toy) than a means of getting around.

Pete.


Very true. I think fads and fashions have a lot to do with it. A lot of child ( under 16 ) relatives of mine really only seem interested in ‘sick stunts’ ( which has changed its meaning from when I was that age, but that’s a whole ‘nother thing ) on BMX’s, and ‘shredding trails’ on a full suss monstrosity of a MTB with some sort of dog in tow. They seem less drawn to velodrome / track cycling, and let alone road cycling, which is “well [inappropriate word removed]” apparently. They really don’t seem interested in using bikes as a means of transport now. I can see their point ( in the U.K. ) as we are so car centric, it’s shocking, and therefore not surprising the ‘yoof’ don’t see cycling as a valid mode of transport.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13251
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 » 28 Nov 2018, 11:27pm

pjclinch wrote:In a video of hundreds of people riding you've seen two smiling...


I really think your inability to interpret "such as" as meaning they're an example rather than the only ones is quite simply ridiculous.
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.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3687
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

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

Postby pjclinch » 29 Nov 2018, 8:26am

mjr wrote:
pjclinch wrote:In a video of hundreds of people riding you've seen two smiling...


I really think your inability to interpret "such as" as meaning they're an example rather than the only ones is quite simply ridiculous.


There are hundreds of people and when you see their faces they typically have neutral faces of show signs of concentration. That is normal and to be expected, as are occasional conversations between riders that may trigger smiles or frowns irrespective of the transport mode. You're worrying about irrelevant semantics against the backdrop of proposing Cycle is trying to link helmet-free cycling to misery through an insidious cover selection policy and then going on to say I'm being ridiculous... Well, that put a smile on my face, at any rate.

You quite reasonably suggest that people riding through junctions might have faces of concentration, but carrying/riding a laden bike through a river wouldn't have a similar effect? We are in Confirmation Bias 101 territory here.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16930
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

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

Postby Vorpal » 29 Nov 2018, 8:46am

Marcus Aurelius wrote: Very true. I think fads and fashions have a lot to do with it. A lot of child ( under 16 ) relatives of mine really only seem interested in ‘sick stunts’ ( which has changed its meaning from when I was that age, but that’s a whole ‘nother thing ) on BMX’s, and ‘shredding trails’ on a full suss monstrosity of a MTB with some sort of dog in tow. They seem less drawn to velodrome / track cycling, and let alone road cycling, which is “well <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>” apparently. They really don’t seem interested in using bikes as a means of transport now. I can see their point ( in the U.K. ) as we are so car centric, it’s shocking, and therefore not surprising the ‘yoof’ don’t see cycling as a valid mode of transport.

Young people are merely reflecting the attitudes of their parents who think
1) cars are for transport; bikes are toys
2) cycling (on the roads) isn't safe

But cycling isn't the only victim of increased risk aversion. Children, in general, are given less freedom to wander, play out, etc. than they once were. In the 70s, kids were regularly sent out to play as soon as they knew how to cross the road safely. Now, they aren't allowed to play out until they are year 6 or so, and even then, they are hardly allowed to wander. Parents want to know where they are at all times. Most activities are organised and supervised, and children get taken to them in cars.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3687
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

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

Postby pjclinch » 29 Nov 2018, 8:55am

Vorpal wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote: Very true. I think fads and fashions have a lot to do with it. A lot of child ( under 16 ) relatives of mine really only seem interested in ‘sick stunts’ ( which has changed its meaning from when I was that age, but that’s a whole ‘nother thing ) on BMX’s, and ‘shredding trails’ on a full suss monstrosity of a MTB with some sort of dog in tow. They seem less drawn to velodrome / track cycling, and let alone road cycling, which is “well <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>” apparently. They really don’t seem interested in using bikes as a means of transport now. I can see their point ( in the U.K. ) as we are so car centric, it’s shocking, and therefore not surprising the ‘yoof’ don’t see cycling as a valid mode of transport.

Young people are merely reflecting the attitudes of their parents who think
1) cars are for transport; bikes are toys
2) cycling (on the roads) isn't safe

But cycling isn't the only victim of increased risk aversion. Children, in general, are given less freedom to wander, play out, etc. than they once were. In the 70s, kids were regularly sent out to play as soon as they knew how to cross the road safely. Now, they aren't allowed to play out until they are year 6 or so, and even then, they are hardly allowed to wander. Parents want to know where they are at all times. Most activities are organised and supervised, and children get taken to them in cars.


Sadly I think this is the case.

I highly recommend Tim Gill's work as an evidence-based counter to this sort of thing, check out https://rethinkingchildhood.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/rethinkingchildhood/

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

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2284
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

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

Postby The utility cyclist » 30 Nov 2018, 3:53am

Oldjohnw wrote:It's one thing disagreeing as strongly as you like with wearing a helmet or showing a picture. But judging parents about their level of care is beyond the remit of anyone here.

And yet helmet wearing parents who force their children to wear them do EXACTLY that to other parents/care givers whose children don't, in fact we have public employees forcing children to wear helmets to cycle to schools and police also putting pressure on parents and judging them by spouting lies. Then you have the likes of the liars Headway who still publish the misinformation from debunked research.

I look forward to the editors of Cycle contacting me so that I can send on photos of my 5 year old grandchild cycling down the steep grassy bank in the park sans plastic hat and my 9 year old grandchild cycling down the 7% hill at over 20mph (also minus hat) ... except they won't because like good little EU soldiers they don't want to divert away from what the EU road safety commission want and that's mass promotion of helmet wearing as per their own report (the one that criticises DK and NL for low helmet wearing and states they are more dangerous than the UK for cycling :twisted: and as clearly seen in the many national programmes to push helmet wearing by the EU.

CUK say they want to give balance and yet the magazine is anything but balanced on the singularly most important aspect of safe cycling, innate freedoms of human beings and inclusive cycling - without a hat you are excluded at the vast majority of organised events, cycling clubs, even child training.

Either the editors/CUK are too dumb to realise the damage they are doing, or as I suspect they have a political agenda to suit their own way of thinking.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13251
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 » 30 Nov 2018, 10:19am

The utility cyclist wrote:like good little EU soldiers they don't want to divert away from what the EU road safety commission want

Although they try to style themselves as part of the EU, such as using a twitter username of ETSC_EU, please remember that "ETSC is a Brussels-based independent non-profit making organisation dedicated to reducing the numbers of deaths and injuries in transport in Europe" - in other words, not actually part of the EU, so not subject to democratic oversight and the above rage is misdirected.
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.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3687
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

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

Postby pjclinch » 30 Nov 2018, 10:43am

The utility cyclist wrote:And yet helmet wearing parents who force their children to wear them do EXACTLY that to other parents/care givers whose children don't, in fact we have public employees forcing children to wear helmets to cycle to schools and police also putting pressure on parents and judging them by spouting lies. Then you have the likes of the liars Headway who still publish the misinformation from debunked research.


If you tried to make the suggestion that the research you're alluding to has been "debunked" and quoting it amounts to "lies" in the correspondence pages of the sorts of peer reviewed journal that publishes helmet research you'd have your letter thrown out in very short order.
When something has been properly debunked it is typically rescinded, but having something come to a different conclusion isn't by itself a proper debunking, it's part of the conversation that is scientific publishing. So Olivier's rebuttal to Walker's paper on close passing of helmeted riders didn't fully debunk it, and Robinson & Walker's rebuttal of Olivier in turn doesn't debunk that, and so on. Andrew Wakefield's paper on vaccines being linked to autism has been debunked if you want an example of what the word really means in this context.

The situation we have is that we have contradictory and contentious research conclusions. That, as it happens, is enough to say you haven't got a sound basis for a public health policy that assumes otherwise, and it is enough to declare that the conclusions of the likes of a school or local authority trying to force one on to a school pupil are not sound, but that is very much not the same as you are suggesting above.

If you go over the top having a rant you just give people an excuse to ignore you because they think you're a zealot. People think I'm an anti-helmet zealot based on what I say, and I'm a few light years short of how far you're going. If you really want to press the case against helemts you need to be aware you're quite possibly lining up own goals if you use the sort of language above, especially if you combine that with the simply erroneous attributions mjr has pointed out.

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

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1458
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

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

Postby Oldjohnw » 1 Dec 2018, 3:39am

I imagine many people here, given the comments, studiously boycott Condor, Evans, Wiggle, Halfords, Planet X and many other cycle businesses, all of which have apparently caved in.
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 1 Dec 2018, 3:55pm, edited 1 time in total.
John

Cycling and recycling

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2284
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

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

Postby The utility cyclist » 1 Dec 2018, 2:11pm

Oldjohnw wrote:I imagine many people here, given the comments, studiously boycott Condor, Evans, Wiggle, Halfords, Planet X and many other cycle businesses, all of which have apparently cavern in.

They are businesses, a cycle charity that is supposed to promote best practise for safe and inclusive cycling is massively different.
Through the magazine they are promoting and normalising helmet wearing, meant or not t is absolutely not in the best interests of safe cycling nor freedoms and inclusivity for people who ride bikes.
If you can't tell the difference between CUK and companies whose major purpose/reason to exist is to make money, then you've got big problems.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1458
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

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

Postby Oldjohnw » 1 Dec 2018, 3:54pm

Oh dear!

I wonder if inclusivity includes people who choose to wear helmets. Or is inclusiveness exclusive?
John

Cycling and recycling

brynpoeth
Posts: 10486
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

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

Postby brynpoeth » 1 Dec 2018, 4:47pm

Oldjohnw wrote:Oh dear!

I wonder if inclusivity includes people who choose to wear helmets. Or is inclusiveness exclusive?

+1
Inclusivity includes everyone and then some, even, especially PoBs, kiddies on scooters without pedals &c :wink:
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4431
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

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

Postby RickH » 1 Dec 2018, 5:16pm

The utility cyclist wrote:I look forward to the editors of Cycle contacting me so that I can send on photos of my 5 year old grandchild cycling down the steep grassy bank in the park sans plastic hat and my 9 year old grandchild cycling down the 7% hill at over 20mph (also minus hat) ... except they won't because...

... they probably don't know you unless you have been in touch with them about submitting suitable photos for use on covers - sharp, high resolution & with space for the header and other text.

Looking at the last 12 months they've had 3 editions without helmets appearing & 3 with.
DSC_1005.JPG
Feb/March, April/May, June/July 2018

DSC_1006.JPG
August/September, October/November, December 2018/January 2019

(sorry they seem to have come out sideways)

I don't think that is bad as helmet wearing on Cycling UK (member group organised) rides is well North of 90% even though it is often not even mentioned let alone encouraged.

Much as I am passionate about there not being a need to wear a plastic hat I think we as individuals, & Cycling UK as an organisation, have to choose our battles.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 438
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

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

Postby Wanlock Dod » 1 Dec 2018, 5:52pm

Yet from their own briefing document
Cycling UK wrote:So instead of focusing on helmets, health and road safety professionals and others should promote
cycling as a safe, normal, aspirational and enjoyable activity, using helmet-free role-models and
imagery
. Individual cyclists may sometimes choose to use helmets, either for confidence or because
of the type of cycling they are doing. However, they should not feel under any pressure to wear
them. For the sake of our health, it is more important to encourage people of all ages to cycle, than
to make an issue of whether they use a helmet when doing so.