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

[Richard Fairhurst]

(you forgot the ASCII 'Cyclists - Stay Back' sticker on the back of that bus...)

[Bicycler]

Yep, nothing to see here.

OTOH, Dan, it was good to have someone from the CTC comment when its policy was being discussed. Whilst the forum is not an official means of communication and no-one would want staff to waste too much of their time trawling the forum, it is a visible face of the CTC, so it would be great if there was a bit more engagement with the forum, particularly where the CTC itself was under discussion.

[mjr]

I'd have preferred it if the rider didn't have a helmet, because unhelmeted transport and touring cyclists redress the balance of (overwhelmingly) helmeted road cyclists and mountain bikers. But being neutral on helmets means just that, and a good picture won't be passed over solely because the rider is wearing a helmet. Rest assured that Cycle will continue to show pictures of unhelmeted and helmeted cyclists on the cover.

I don't like that - I think helmets should be very difficult to get into Cycle, the same as it's very difficult to get helmetless pictures into most print and broadcast media - but could the helmetted ones at least be wearing them correctly, please?

Portrayals of comedy chinstraps that risk strangulation or wearing them tilted-right-back as OK helps neither side of the debate...

Edit: just to add, it's brilliant to see an official response even if I don't like it.

[Manc33]

It looks dark enough to need lights, unless I am looking at an image printed too dark by the lab that did it for the magazine then the magazine's own reproduction added more darkness then the OP took a pic of the cover making it darker then finally my computer monitor is making it look darker.

[Bicycler]

I can confirm from my copy that it is daylight. No need for lights

[Manc33]

It is now.

http://i.imgur.com/e1lu7yk.jpg

Tattoos on a girl urgh.

[Bicycler]

Yup, that's a much better likeness

[nez]

I thought "what are tats?" Given all the physical comments I imagined it was a bit of slang of which I was ignorant. Therefore nice tats = a comment female moderators would ban you for. Oo-er.

[motty]

It's not a staged photo for Cycle's front page. It's from a shoot that the photographer did for Ridgeback, hence the reference to 'modelling a Ridgeback Avenida' on the contents page. Ridgeback were kind enough to let us re-use the picture, which I found in the photographer's portfolio.

Thank you for clarifying, the origins of the photograph.
I would prefer the CTC to be more proactive in showing un-helmetted riders, as an attempt to try and balance the media's obsession with compulsory helmets

[[XAP]Bob]

Although I agree that an active bit of discrimination to counter the discrimination we see everywhere else might be a good thing (although how many non CTC members read cycle?)

I'm much more concerned that the helmet isn't being worn correctly. I appreciate that this isn't a picture taken by the CTC, but would a motor magazine show people driving without seat belts on properly (ok, bad example)...

[Tangled Metal]

Personally I'd rather they'd not promote tattoos on the front cover.

So they're promoting helmet use, incorrect wearing of helmets and tattoos. Nope! They've put an image on the cover that fitted some requirement defined by the mag contents. The helmet and tattoos are unhappy coincidence. However, representing it as acceptable to wear helmets if you want is no better or worse than representing the helmetless view IMHO. Cyclists have different views as much as any group. The OP comes across as "Disgusted from _______" in complaints. Get over it. One image doesn't fit your views, get over it.

[Tonyf33]

Personally I'd rather they'd not promote tattoos on the front cover.

So they're promoting helmet use, incorrect wearing of helmets and tattoos. Nope! They've put an image on the cover that fitted some requirement defined by the mag contents. The helmet and tattoos are unhappy coincidence. However, representing it as acceptable to wear helmets if you want is no better or worse than representing the helmetless view IMHO. Cyclists have different views as much as any group. The OP comes across as "Disgusted from _______" in complaints. Get over it. One image doesn't fit your views, get over it.

It's YOU whom come across as 'disgusted from', you make a snidy comment because you disagree, what because someone HAS a viewpoint, you get over yourself pal, make a valid point and leave it at that, you failed as it happened, your point was far from valid but you wouldn't know why would you.

It would seem a fair few clearly don't see the insiduous creep of helmet wearing and its promotion.
This photo by its nature comes across as helmet wearing is de-rigour for even the most common garden type of cycling, it's another 'cycling isn't normal', if sexy tattoo lady is wearing one and it's on the front page of the CTC magazine then that's the accepted norm right, forget about the fact the helmet isn't done up properly or what's inside of the magazine (to supposedly redress the front page image), it's the FRONT COVER, it shouts out against an aspect of cycling that the CTC is supposed to be protecting!

If you can't get your head around why this is a problem when you want to maintain choice and not be propelled down the route that cycling has gone over the last 2 decades or so I find that pretty sad, it's an indictment of vast swathes of people being so easily duped, not just on this but in every aspect of life. Open your eyes for gooness sakes.

That the very people in charge of CTC and the magzine producers can't see/understand why the picture does damage in the long run is massively dissapointing, clearly none of you understand the psychology of what's going on.

[Bicycler]

However, representing it as acceptable to wear helmets if you want is no better or worse than representing the helmetless view IMHO. Cyclists have different views as much as any group. The OP comes across as "Disgusted from _______" in complaints. Get over it. One image doesn't fit your views, get over it.

To be fair, the argument is potentially slightly more nuanced. The idea that the CTC is neutral is an oversimplification. Whilst it is CTC policy to not suggest that you or I should or should not wear helmets, it is actively against the promotion of helmets and actively supports the promotion of cycling as "a safe, normal, aspirational and enjoyable activity, using helmet-free role-models and imagery". So there is an obligation to portray unhelmeted cycling (particularly in aspirational images such as that under discussion) but no parallel requirement to portray helmeted cycling - let's face it, the social acceptability of choosing to wear helmets is not in any doubt! I cannot, however, see the objection to a single picture. One swallow does not make a summer. If and when Cycle does start routinely showing utility cyclists as normally lidded then we might have cause for complaint. In this case it's a storm in a teacup.

[stewartpratt]

OUTRAGE BUS NOW OFFERING A RAIL REPLACEMENT SERVICE TO TATTOOS VIA CHINSTRAP, ALL PASSENGERS FOR BASIC HELMET PLEASE ALIGHT AT THE NEXT STOP DING DING

[bovlomov]

Reading DanJoyce's post, and between the lines a bit...

The photo wasn't free. Presumably, though, it was a type of stock image, and much cheaper than a commissioned photo. So Cycle is drawing on a pool of images that professional photographers have taken for other purposes - and those photographers probably don't give a monkey's about the helmet debate. Indeed, they'll reflect the population, in that most will consider helmets to be normal and sensible.

I'm sure that Dan is honest in his request that we might submit our own images, but most of us haven't the skills or equipment to produce an image of that quality. Or the models. We can hardly expect passing cyclists to co-operate if we ask them to make a dozen passes while we get the best angle and light.

If there are any good (and I mean good) photographers out there who don't like all these stock images of helmeted riders, they could do worse than build a portfolio of images of bare-headed riders. At least it would give picture editors an option. While many will feel it their duty to show only helmeted riders, it seems that they may not have much choice anyway, as that's all they are getting.