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

[beardy]

Eleven of us out on Sunday, I was the only one without a helmet. Which is pretty much the case these days.
This makes me more of a minority than the women cyclists!

[mjr]

Sure, but so many group rides have helmet rules or at least helmet pressure, that they're a very atypical sample of a mostly unhelmeted population. I think I saw TRL claim 40% on a London route at peak and they usually seem too keen on them, but I've not found that reference just now to cite it.

[pjclinch]

"Normal" is not a majority, it's a slightly fuzzy number where it's unremarkable to come across it. For example, there is a clear majority of chaps in my department at work, but it's not unusual/is normal to see women as you wander around.

'Bents are remarkable, folders no longer are. Helmets are normal, so (around here, at least) are bare heads.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

I think it's what has created this discussion. Is this a normal picture of a normally attired person? The huge irony is that a single picture of an unhelmeted rider is completely banned in most media (e.g. the BBC). They at least know the power of a single image even if the CTC doesn't. As does the entire UK advertising and photographic image industry.

For some values of "most"...
For example, logging in to my online banking this morning, an image the bank chose to show as a Random Happy Customer type, with no obvious cycling context, was a lady on a bike. Without a helmet. If one of the major high street banks will do this it doesn't really do much for your suggestion above that everyone without a helmet is "banned". When I wander in to the nearby GigaTesco the first thing one passes is the photography centre, and one of the banner samples is a family out riding bikes without helmets. If very large commercial propositions are happy to show unhelmeted riders then it's pretty clear "the entire UK advertising and photographic image industry" is not on board with the pro-helmet conspiracy. That some clueless BBC producers have decided reporters must wear them isn't Case Closed the other way.

So at least in that sense Tonyf33 has some pretty impressive backing - a huge swathe of media and communication professionals. This photo, for the helmet manufacturers, was a winner. And not only didn't they have to pay a penny for it, the CTC paid for it themselves. You couldn't make it up. It's the CTC's bacon sandwich moment and a triumph for the pro-helmet lobby IMV.

It might have been a small pond but it was a pretty big fish.

Codswallop. The Bacon Sandwich was a moment of national ridicule across most demographics. This is a storm in a thimble, a sub-forum of a sub-forum of a forum mainly read by The Same Old Names, and you can't even get agreement amongst them.

Pete.

[horizon]

If very large commercial propositions are happy to show unhelmeted riders then it's pretty clear "the entire UK advertising and photographic image industry" is not on board with the pro-helmet conspiracy.

Pete.

What I meant was that the power of a single image is recognised. I don't think the banks are too worried.

We're probably looking at this from different ends of the telescope so we aren't that much in disagreement. In principle I would agree with Tonyf33 that in the context of the CTC mag it was significant but you can just as easily argue that in the greater scheme of things it really isn't.

In life, you find what you are looking for so, yes, I'm reading a lot into this.

[pjclinch]

What I meant was that the power of a single image is recognised.

A single image certainly can have a lot of power, but that's not the same thing as any single image does. I really don't think this one does, at least not in terms of helmet wearing (or not). Typically it's pictures of a smashed helmet combined with not-really-grokked-what-it-means comments to the tune of "that would have been smashed skull without it!" that are the things that get people afraid to go out without a helmet, not things like this.

Pete.

[andycharlton3460]

she's riding on a cobbled 'street' away from the madding crowd and yet she's wearing a helmet (but no gloves )

So, it finally looks like the CTC have caved in regarding helmets then, if ever there was a situation and type of cycling that never did require helmets this it it....

But, the title is 'Riding to Work." At the end if that cobbled street is a junction with a busy road leading into a town centre with badly designed roads and no segregation. Also, she looks of an age where her parents told her if she wanted a bike, she had to wear a helmet, and she is used to it now and that's just what she does wherever she's going. Finally she's told her daughter she has to wear a helmet on her bike, and she wouldn't be seen as a hipocrite.
There are a lot of very good reasons people wear helmets apart from the perceived level of danger of one particular piece of road.

[bovlomov]

But, the title is 'Riding to Work." At the end if that cobbled street is a junction with a busy road leading into a town centre with badly designed roads and no segregation.

She's already AT work, modelling sitting on a bike. Is the bike moving, by the way, or is it supported by something that has been photoshopped out?

After she finished this assignment she went off to another job, modelling for a shower advert. I hope she didn't fall and hit her head.

[TonyR]

I was reflecting over the weekend on the special status helmet and head injuries have for cyclists. You probably all read about the family of five in Birmingham who were mown down by a car and taken to hospital with serious head injuries. Two of the children have sadly since died. But it would be considered very bad taste to even suggest they might have worn helmets. Yet routinely when cyclists are run over and killed or seriously injured its considered the norm to blame them for not wearing helmets despite the legal obligation and risk being identical.

[Steady rider]

Cycle could include a note to readers requesting photos and advising that a mix of photos with helmeted and non-helmeted would be welcome and a prize of some form would be given to photos used. In this way the editor would have a selection to choose from and not have to pay for other pictures.

[bovlomov]

Cycle could include a note to readers requesting photos....

That was discussed upthread, and I think the conclusion was that our snapshots wouldn't do. I mean - ignore the helmet if you can - that cover photo is a well lit, well composed shot of a smiling person of above average attractiveness. How can the reader compete with that? Readers' wives* on bikes?

* or husbands, partners, families, colleagues, friends, neighbours...

[Steady rider]

A specification to cover the photo quality may be needed, the photo experts could add the details. Photos intended to be sent to the CTC may use more expensive equipment. It is probably worth asking for photos to see what arrives. I would in general prefer to see photos from normal cycling rather than the one on the cover.

ps may give an idea http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/p ... images.asp

[bovlomov]

I would in general prefer to see photos from normal cycling rather than the one on the cover.

I agree, but as (I think) thirdcrank suggested, perhaps the cover is intended to appeal to potential advertisers rather than to the readers.

I suppose we could always do our own webmag: no ads and only unstaged pictures. The Uncommercial Traveller: the magazine for spendthrift cyclists.

[thirdcrank]

It's a while since I posted and without ploughing back through a long thread, I thought I had commented on being acceptable to those who control the govt grant purse strings, but it's equally applicable to advertisers. The free-at-point-of-delivery model means that the readership doesn't really have the usual ultimate sanction of stopping buying it. (Unless, of course, they get fed up with the parent organisation as well.)

[bovlomov]

It's a while since I posted and without ploughing back through a long thread, I thought I had commented on being acceptable to those who control the govt grant purse strings, but it's equally applicable to advertisers.

Oh yes, that's it. It was gaz who mentioned advertisers.