[XAP]Bob wrote: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)...
+1. To compound the felony, take a look at the CTC cycling holidays ad on the inside back cover
I'd rather the mag only includes photos where helmets are worn correctly, if it wants to use photos of helmeted riders.
Did a quick count and there are about 70 helmeted and 50 unhelmeted cyclists in the mag this month, skewed a bit by a pic of a charity event start. I liked the cover shot, caught my attention and presented a positive image of a woman comfortable with herself to display tattoos and cycle in ordinary garb. I didn't notice the helmet until mentioned here!
Are you implying that tattos are okay on men? The cover of cycle appears to feature a woman, not a girl. I would expect that it's okay for a woman to get herself tattoos. Or have I misunderstood, and 'urgh' is an expression of delight?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
bovlomov wrote:Well, we're heading for a future in which everything is either illegal or mandatory. Last week's mandatory will be this week's illegal, last week's illegal will be this week's mandatory, and 80% of the population will be employed, by Capita, to keep order.
Do you have tattoos?
Not sure if you were asking me in particular, but no, nor do I have any desire to. But if people do, that's fine by me.
bovlomov wrote:You seem to be dangerously easy-going. Can we not draw you into a strong opinion, for or against tattooed women?
Depends on the women and on the tattoos. Much too complex an issue to make lazy generalisations in a forum, let alone in a thread about helmets, whether or not their straps are correctly adjusted.
What the heck is up with the barrier in the background? Is it getting ready to mate with the neighbouring one?
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.
mjr wrote:What the heck is up with the barrier in the background? Is it getting ready to mate with the neighbouring one?
I was more wondering about her far foot...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I was more wondering about her far foot...
Has she just made the novice fixie mistake of stopping pedalling and is getting launched over the bars or is she applying some serious back presuure braking?
When I saw the picture in the CTC magazine posted above it reminded me of a hugely popular forum thread on the C+ forum.... it was called something like the big girls thread. It was top dollar but disappeared a few years ago and I never got to the bottom of where and why. I'd assume it was PC related but as someone who cycles an area where women riding bikes is like seeing the pope running the 100mtrs it was refreshing and raised hopes of a nicer more aesthetic cycling future. I'm a MAMIL and I tire of seeing similar to myself even though we're happy on our bikes. It is still a very male oriented pastime and that definitely needs to change.
Helmets wise I personally don't see what all the huff and puff is about..... I'd advocate freedom not to wear seatbelts and motorcycle crash helmets but knowing the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages then why would I be so stupid. No-one know's how they're going to fall and to what they will collide with in an accident, if we could plan that we'd never get injured so to put on a helmet to reduce one area of risk is no great crime. It's extreme responses to helmeted images that I think will lose CTC members, I'm not a pro-racing cyclist but nor am I plus fours and tweed cap. I'm sure there's many who've been pleased to have been wearing a helmet following an unexpected incident and I'm sure there's probably quite a few anti-helmet who can't put pen to paper or even wipe their behind because they wished they had... if they've even the ability to wish. I think the idea of putting membership up to £43 may be more offensive than some helmet wearing cover images ( must admit she's a very nice photographic subject, I'm sure she'll have a nice personality too ).
old_windbag wrote:Helmets wise I personally don't see what all the huff and puff is about..... I'd advocate freedom not to wear seatbelts and motorcycle crash helmets but knowing the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages then why would I be so stupid. No-one know's how they're going to fall and to what they will collide with in an accident, if we could plan that we'd never get injured so to put on a helmet to reduce one area of risk is no great crime.
But you put your finger on the problem. Helmets may help or harm depending on the circumstances. But as you say, you can't choose the circumstances so we are left with the fact that the best evidence out there indicates an average outcome somewhere between no benefit and increased harm. You are among the many people who strap one on thinking it will probably benefit them but at worse will do no harm not realising the evidence is otherwise.
Also what we do know is helmets put people off cycling whereas the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks twenty fold. So on the day when the news is obesity is set to overtake smoking as the leading cause of cancer (and is I believe now the leading cause of preventable death above smoking) why would you want to discourage people from one activity that is easy to fit into their daily lives and brings real life prolonging health benefits that far outweigh any risk of a head injury
