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

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

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

Post by Oldjohnw »

See p14, Cycling UK's membership advert. Hardly a helmet in sight.

P64 an article on cycling safety - no helmet.
P34 - letters. No helmet.
John
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14640
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

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

Post by gaz »

Ye gods, the latest issue.
DSCN2950.JPG

Toe clips without straps! What is the world coming to :wink: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
LinusR
Posts: 472
Joined: 24 May 2017, 7:27pm
Location: London
Contact:

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

Post by LinusR »

cycle-august-2021-2000px.jpg
Screenshot from 2021-08-09 12-22-52.png
(edit: added a screen shot to show where readers are taken from the link https://mobil.abus.com/ in the advertorial.)

I have a real problem with this "advertising feature" in the latest Cycle. It is clearly labelled as "advertorial" (twice) but many readers will read it as journalism - not an advert. It may not breach the ASA's guidance but in my view it breaches CTC/CUK's policy on helmets by promoting their use in its own magazine. And it does so without a note about CUK's policy on helmets, which states they are against the promotion of helmets and that "there are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries". https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets

But many readers are not to know this and will read the sentences which describe the helmets as "intended to help reduce rotational force to the head during impacts, potentially minimising injuries"; and "reduce the risks associated with impact and rotation injuries" as advice from Cycling UK. In other words, it looks like CUK is promoting the use of helmets.

Cycling UK states: "Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by clear information about the uncertainties over the benefits or otherwise of helmets."

Cycling UK through its Cycle magazine has failed to properly inform its readers by omitting its own policy advice. At the very least the article should have been labelled "Advertising features" and carried a statement saying:

"Cycling UK is pro-choice on helmets but is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns because these are almost certainly detrimental to public health. There are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries."

I'm minded to make an official complaint to CTC about this.
Last edited by LinusR on 9 Aug 2021, 12:27pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

LinusR wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 1:10pmIt may not breach the ASA's guidance but in my view it breaches CTC/CUK's policy on helmets by promoting their use in its own magazine. And it does so without a note about CUK's policy on helmets, which states they are against the promotion of helmets...
The linked policy states that they are opposed to "helmet promotion campaigns" rather than to their use by individuals.

If you do write please could you ask about what "advertorial" means in general? Thanks.

Jonathan
User avatar
LinusR
Posts: 472
Joined: 24 May 2017, 7:27pm
Location: London
Contact:

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

Post by LinusR »

Jdsk wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 1:24pm
If you do write please could you ask about what "advertorial" means in general? Thanks.

Jonathan
It matters more what it means to readers...

ASA states in guidance:

"Most ads and other marketing communications are obviously recognisable as advertising purely by virtue of their content and the context in which they appear e.g. display ads in newspapers, ‘promoted’ posts on social media, leaflets, etc. One type of advertising that, due to its close resemblance to editorial content, may be less readily identifiable is ‘advertorial’ or ‘advertisement features’. This material may appear, for example, as long-form copy presented in a similar way as the editorial content within a publication, or as influencer marketing posts. "

And

"Where the overall presentation doesn’t make sufficiently clear that it’s an advertisement, as opposed to regular editorial content, a label is a straightforward way of indicating this to consumers. The CAP Code specifically refers to “Advertisement Feature” as an appropriate label for ‘advertorial’ content. The labels “Ad”, “Advert”, “Advertising”, “Advertisement”, “Ad Feature” and similar are all very likely to be considered acceptable labels, as long as they are displayed in a noticeable place." https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/re ... tures.html

Note although ASA use the term "advertorial" it is not listed as an appropriate label. But Cycling UK, in my view, must hold itself to a higher standard as the subject of helmets is directly related to its policy and readers look to the organisation for impartial advice.
mattheus
Posts: 5031
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

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

Post by mattheus »

LinusR wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 1:47pm
Note although ASA use the term "advertorial" it is not listed as an appropriate label. But Cycling UK, in my view, must hold itself to a higher standard as the subject of helmets is directly related to its policy and readers look to the organisation for impartial advice.
Completely agree.

(I also strongly dislike "Advertorial" content in general; it's understandable in a totally commercial publication, but almost unforgiveable in a members magazine. For a charity! )
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

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

Post by Steady rider »

Does ASA apply to the Highway Code? After a phone call, It looks like they do not.
atoz
Posts: 577
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

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

Post by atoz »

Saw recently a flyer for a local kids cycling training group run by an independent organisation, had the Cycling UK logo on it. What concerns me is that there was words saying helmets were compulsory. I suspect this is connected with funding. So in effect CUK helmet policy gets forgotten? Could be ignorance of the stated policy, but it is concerning.

Previously I have posted about clubs in my area being all helmetted, and how it is queried when you don't wear one. Nothing recently IMHO has lessened this trend.

I still don't wear a helmet. I have had only 1 significant accident in my cycling life, which is over 50 years. The injury was soft tissue back muscle strain and tightness of the lower facet vertebrae which required some manipulative physio. There was a mild graze to the scalp. Had CT scan which was precautionary, no problems. Wearing a helmet would not have protected my lower body. Yes I have been very lucky. But I am an experienced rider, which must help a little.

The risk I run is substantially less than crossing the road in my village to get my bus to work, not to mention negotiating the multiple pedestrian crossings to get to my place of work. Cycling to work is unfortunately not a realistic proposition for me, even though I've done more miles than some people have hot dinners lol.
PH
Posts: 13099
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

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

Post by PH »

mattheus wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 3:15pm [I also strongly dislike "Advertorial" content in general;
Me too. I have no strong feeling on the H debate, but I started reading the Topeak tool Advertorial before realising it wasn't a review... That isn't accidental on the part of the advertiser, it plays on the way many people initially read magazines, just flicking through and reading what catches the eye. Going back some other time to anything they want to read properly.
Post Reply