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

[RickH]

Why has no-one mentioned that on April/May's cover the cyclist was wearing a helmet (Maybe as they are mountainbiking so that doesn't count? )
And February/ March's (but they are in lycra so that probably doesn't count either).
Also in 2014 June/July (lycra), April/May (MTB) & February/March 2014 (1 cyclist is definitely wearing one, the other 2 probably aren't but it is hard to see as they are small and in shadow).

Is is just that the rider is so prominent in the photo on the June/July one?

If you don't want photos with helmets take ones of your own that are of sufficient quality and meet the requirements for a magazine cover - primarily an upright (portrait) shot with space for the title & other text. I personally think that finding a good enough photo that ticks all the other boxes - young, female, attractive, trendy (I presume), ethnic minority (possibly? at least indeterminate ethnicity) - and apparently thoroughly enjoying being on a bike but without a helmet is asking a lot.

Rick.

[Tonyf33]

Rick, did you not read the thread from the beginning as I and others gave reasons why this is wrong.
The reason it so incensed me was that the helmet looks massively out of place, the lady is pootling along in a quiet away from the madding crowd type cycling, no gloves, no hi vis, no padded shorts, basically normal cycling, type of cycling that folk like to enjoy...and yet she's wearing a helmet (poorly affixed at that).
it gives the impression that even the lowest of the low with regard to 'risk' still requires a helmet.

As I've said previously, if people don't understand why the photo is massively wrong (notwithstanding any comparison to a mountain biking with a helmet photo) then forwarding the discussion is pointless. Those people whom can't see the problem with it and/or can't or won't accept there's an issue despite clear argument/evidence are already out of reach with regard to helmet wearing and the huge negative impact it has on society as well as freedom of choice.

[pjclinch]

Rick, did you not read the thread from the beginning as I and others gave reasons why this is wrong.
The reason it so incensed me was that the helmet looks massively out of place, the lady is pootling along in a quiet away from the madding crowd type cycling, no gloves, no hi vis, no padded shorts, basically normal cycling, type of cycling that folk like to enjoy...and yet she's wearing a helmet (poorly affixed at that).
it gives the impression that even the lowest of the low with regard to 'risk' still requires a helmet.

So should you see such a person with such a "massively out of place" helmet in Real Life you would be "incensed" and perhaps pause to rage at them for being "wrong"?
Even if just the first, you'd be spending an awful lot of time out on your bike looking through a red mist.

For many (most?) helmet wearing is simply an habit (they'll probably rationalise it other than that, but that's what it mostly is). A pal of mine does serious MTB and wears a helmet for that, and that has him in the habit that he'll wear one for any cycling, a bit like all the fully helmeted German families you'll pass on Dutch seaside fietspads in the holidays. Similarly, a fellow paddler who'd been doing whitewater for years and thus was used to wearing a helmet still wore it all the time when he took up sea touring. "George, you can't hit your head on the bottom, it's at least 20' deep!", and he'd laugh, and say he just felt happier with it on because he was used to wearing it, pootling along in an otherwise helmet-free flotilla.

Pete.

[bovlomov]

so should you see such a person with such a "massively out of place" helmet in Real Life you would be "incensed" and perhaps pause to rage at them for being "wrong"?

The difference here is that the rider isn't wearing a helmet in real life. She is a model in an advertising campaign. In all likelihood the helmet was given to her to wear. And, somewhere down the line, the editor of Cycle chose - and paid for - that image. It's not just any old person, who likes to wear a helmet. It's a series of choices by different people.

[Vorpal]

So should you see such a person with such a "massively out of place" helmet in Real Life you would be "incensed" and perhaps pause to rage at them for being "wrong"?
Even if just the first, you'd be spending an awful lot of time out on your bike looking through a red mist.

Independent of the argument about whether a helmetted everyday cyclist belongs on the cover of Cycle, I think that you have to admit that one person in the street is a bit different to the cover of a magazine intended to represent cycle campaigners.

[pjclinch]

So should you see such a person with such a "massively out of place" helmet in Real Life you would be "incensed" and perhaps pause to rage at them for being "wrong"?
Even if just the first, you'd be spending an awful lot of time out on your bike looking through a red mist.

Independent of the argument about whether a helmetted everyday cyclist belongs on the cover of Cycle, I think that you have to admit that one person in the street is a bit different to the cover of a magazine intended to represent cycle campaigners.

If it was only representing "cycle campaigners" then that would be a point somewhere on the order of show-stopping, but it isn't. It's CTC's magazine for all of CTC's members and containing details of all of CTC's activities, not only campaigning.

[MockCyclist]

I hope this is still on topic, have a look at this link:

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Beverley ... story.html

I strongly suspect there would be an outcry if these three cyclists hadn't been wearing helmets, along the lines of, how do they have the gall to campaign for a cycle path on safety grounds if they aren't protecting themselves?

[mjr]

I strongly suspect there would be an outcry if these three cyclists hadn't been wearing helmets, along the lines of, how do they have the gall to campaign for a cycle path on safety grounds if they aren't protecting themselves?

Yeah, just like all the coverage about London campaigns is dominated by an outcry about how all these people aren't wearing helmets...

space4cycling ride in London

[Vorpal]

So should you see such a person with such a "massively out of place" helmet in Real Life you would be "incensed" and perhaps pause to rage at them for being "wrong"?
Even if just the first, you'd be spending an awful lot of time out on your bike looking through a red mist.

Independent of the argument about whether a helmetted everyday cyclist belongs on the cover of Cycle, I think that you have to admit that one person in the street is a bit different to the cover of a magazine intended to represent cycle campaigners.

If it was only representing "cycle campaigners" then that would be a point somewhere on the order of show-stopping, but it isn't. It's CTC's magazine for all of CTC's members and containing details of all of CTC's activities, not only campaigning.

Even so, a person on the street is still different from the person on the front of the magazine. But that said, even for members who aren't interested in campaigning, the CTC represents cycle campaigning. And even if Cycle is meant to have things in it for all members, I think it is much more of a statement for Cycle to put a helmetted everyday cyclist on the cover than for any other cycling magazine.

[thirdcrank]

... Even so, a person on the street is still different from the person on the front of the magazine. But that said, even for members who aren't interested in campaigning, the CTC represents cycle campaigning. And even if Cycle is meant to have things in it for all members, I think it is much more of a statement for Cycle to put a helmetted everyday cyclist on the cover than for any other cycling magazine.

Yes.

And presumably that's perhaps why some posters - especially the OP - seem to feel so strongly about this. But I'll come back to the status of the mag itself and its cover in particular. For mags on open sale, the cover aims to attract buyers: no sales, no publication. We see a range of ways of getting the punter to put their hand into their pocket and even once demure mags descend to this. The CTC mag is protected from this market pressure so its cover need not act as a sort of teaser. As I've posted before, for me there have been few memorable CTC mag covers (do we now say "iconic?" ) but my general impression would be of a nice cycling picture and some tags (I presume there's a publishers' term for them) to the main articles inside. I'll suggest that this cover is influenced by a different market force: not the need to attract readers, but to please the big misters who control govt grants and (pace gaz) advertisers.

Expressions like "CTC finally caved in" suggest to me a wider concern about the CTC's direction.

[reohn2]

...Expressions like "CTC finally caved in" suggest to me a wider concern about the CTC's direction.

Spot on IMHO and one reason why I no longer pay the ransom

[Tonyf33]

Centre spread of a money magazine given with a popular women's magazine, the article is about contactless payments & the speed of such.
See, this is a far more positive image than the CTCs one could ever be.

[keepontriking]

Yes, it seems CTC has sold out to the helmet lobby.

In this current advertising of a cycling course the No.1 activity is the ability to "Fit your own helmet".

In the past I'm sure it would have read "Fit your own helmet if you choose to wear one".

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150625-fre ... ty-courses

[Si]

I think that you are really going out of your way to invent conspiracy theories where there are none now!

It's just a phrase lifted from the manual and describes the outcome in a similarly poor way as the rest of the outcomes listed.

[horizon]

I think that you are really going out of your way

No. it's like Morris Minors: you don't see one until someone mentions them and then they're everywhere!

So:

Step no. 1: put on your helmet

Step no. 2: take it off again due to ...

Step no. 3: check you bike over.

Funny isn't it how the helmet got number one listing even though it isn't the first step? You see - Morris Minors. We're focusing on this issue so there it is, no conspiracy theory, nothing. Just mentioning that, oops, there's that pesky helmet thing again. I'm sure the organisers/writers didn't even think about it - it just came out naturally. Which is the point.