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

[thirdcrank]

In today's Daily Telegraph, and in spite of it being the first day of the TdeF 2015, a major retailer ran this nostalgic ad., in an apparent bid to occupy the ground once held by the CTC Gazette.

(I couldn't find the pic online so I scanned it and it's a bit too large for my scanner, but you get the picture, so to speak. Evans Cycles BTW)

[pjclinch]

In today's Daily Telegraph, and in spite of it being the first day of the TdeF 2015, a major retailer ran this nostalgic ad., in an apparent bid to occupy the ground once held by the CTC Gazette.

In the Graun too. And it's not "in spite", it's particularly because. In the Graun it was on the sport pages double spread specifically all about Le Tour.

Hopefully an indication that actually people are getting decreasingly apoplectic about the absence of helmets, and the Thought Police don't need to get too involved in either direction.

Pete.

[Tonyf33]

In today's Daily Telegraph, and in spite of it being the first day of the TdeF 2015, a major retailer ran this nostalgic ad., in an apparent bid to occupy the ground once held by the CTC Gazette.

In the Graun too. And it's not "in spite", it's particularly because. In the Graun it was on the sport pages double spread specifically all about Le Tour.

Hopefully an indication that actually people are getting decreasingly apoplectic about the absence of helmets, and the Thought Police don't need to get too involved in either direction.

Pete.

Thought police, you're obviously talking about mine and others response to the front page photo right? However 'thought police' is nothing to do with proven psychology, TP refers to second guessing what people specifically think about X not how people are moulded/manipulated/directed and certain aspects of life undermined without them really realising or even understanding as you've clearly demonstrated several time over in this thread.

[mjr]

Evans's TV adverts are still all helmets and nappies. Skoda OTOH

[pjclinch]

Thought police, you're obviously talking about mine and others response to the front page photo right?

Note I specifically said in both directions. So the requirement, be it for or for not wearing a helmet in an image, is what I'm railing at.

However 'thought police' is nothing to do with proven psychology, TP refers to second guessing what people specifically think about X not how people are moulded/manipulated/directed and certain aspects of life undermined without them really realising or even understanding as you've clearly demonstrated several time over in this thread.

Sorry Tony, but the term "Thought Police" and how it's used isn't subject to pressure by, errr, the Thought Police...

I understand what you're getting at pretty well (I imagine TPTB on my patch might well confirm I've bothered them about portrayal of cyclists at some length), but what you don't seem to have grokked is that is trumped by the right of CTC members who choose to wear helmets for fairly innocuous riding to be portrayed on the cover of their own magazine.

Pete.

[horizon]

the right of CTC members who choose to wear helmets for fairly innocuous riding to be portrayed on the cover of their own magazine.

Pete.

Well lhat's the nub of it, isn't it. Was it this or was it something less innocuous (I was going to say more sinister, but sinister it wasn't). Was it an innocently chosen photograph, representative of the real world (which it can be argued it is)? Or was it a carelessly chosen photograph that played right into the hands of those who would want to see cycling and helmets portrayed in this light? And then, even if it was the latter, does it really matter?

I'm of the view that it was a bit of an own goal, a howler in fact. And it does matter (because these things do). But the argument can just as easily be made the other way (as you have done). So the best way forward may be to agree to disagree (in a very friendly fashion) and see where all this takes us. My guess is that the editor of the CTC magazine will actually take note (he even took the time to post on here) despite the official line and there might be some more reflection in future. So there might be winners all round.

And thirdcrank has reminded us that while it was the CTC magazine wot done it, there is a lot of counter-imagery out there.

[thirdcrank]

I thought that conversion to charity status meant that the organisation had to promote its charitable objects rather than reflect the wishes of its membership.

IIRC, the origin of the CTC's "no compulsion" stance was not a principled defence of the individual's freedom of choice but a pragmatic recognition that the CTC was split over the subject - a split frequently reflected in the debates on this section of the forum.

I'm not going to dig about to find the exact wording of the relevant object but IIRC, it's the promotion of cycling. In the last 25 years or so, quite a bit has been learnt about the effect of compulsory helmet wearing on the levels of cycling and I suspect that a lot of that also applies to the quasi-compulsion we now see in the UK. If I'm right about that, then it's arguable that the CTC's stance should expose the helmet negatives, at the very least. Even if I am right, it's not going to be enforced, because the authorities are so pro-helmet, which is part of the reason for the quasi-compulsion. Also, it's a characteristic of many charities that income generation is their overriding priority and there's no £££ or $$$ in the anti helmet lobby.

[reohn2]

...... Also, it's a characteristic of many charities that income generation is their overriding priority and there's no £££ or $$$ in the anti helmet lobby.

And perhaps plenty in a pro helmet stance by stealth,by not upsetting the misters who hand out the grants,whilst getting nice and cosy with the bike trade which in itself brings in some more mular.

Cynic,me?

[mjr]

...... Also, it's a characteristic of many charities that income generation is their overriding priority and there's no £££ or $$$ in the anti helmet lobby.

And perhaps plenty in a pro helmet stance by stealth,by not upsetting the misters who hand out the grants,whilst getting nice and cosy with the bike trade which in itself brings in some more mular.

Cynic,me?

Possibly. The pro-helmet money is much more obvious: increased use of helmets that they tell you to replace every three years means more profits for makers and retailers and then CTC might get a small treat for being a good poodle; but it's probably far far smaller than the anti-helmet money: mass cycling would mean more profits for bike makers and servicers. However, unless CTC can position itself as vital in promoting mass cycling, then it won't get any credit or treats... and there I think is a big part of the motive for things like the Great British Bike Revival Publicity Campaign (or whatever it was called - I saw nothing of it locally, as usual).

[Cyril Haearn]

This one is worth resurrecting I think

What does CTC /CUK think now, what about pictures in the Gazette?

Often when a question is asked one might like to answer *don't know enough to answer, no opinion*

Anyone here like to give that answer? Or does everyone have an opinion? (I do)

[drossall]

I don't know, but I'd disagree with Tony on one premise of the original post. She's riding in the sort of situation that helmets are designed for -- hardly moving. It makes far more sense to show her with a helmet and sports cyclists without than the other way around.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my Nexus 7 using hovercraft full of eels.

[Cyril Haearn]

On the cover of the new Gazette 100% are wearing h*****s

[Cunobelin]

On the cover of the new Gazette 100% are wearing h*****s

including one worn in a way that is badly fitted and worn..... exactly the circumstances that would exacerbate injuries in case of an incident

[RickH]

What does CTC /CUK think now, what about pictures in the Gazette?

They probably think of it as mainly of historical interest. I think the CTC Gazette was last published in 1963.

[RickH]

Replying on a more serious note...

It must be hard to get good photos of an event like this with riders not wearing helmets. Clare and I did the 50 mile route, both helmetless. There were over 200 people riding &, despite helmets not being compulsory, I don't recall seeing anyone else riding without one. The same for the Two Mills Early Season 50 in April, featured in the previous edition of Cycle, we didn't see any others riding without. When I did the Wild Wales, solo, last August I saw a couple of other helmetless riders but that was all. These are all part of Cycling UK's Challenge series so come under their helmets not required remit.

If you organise "helmets not compulsory" events but your punters insist on wearing them, what are organisers expected to do?

If you are photographing an event do you wait at a nice location for hours, possibly many hours, on the off chance that someone is riding without a helmet? If you manage to get photos of any helmetless riders are they going to be suitable for a cover photo?

Members' group rides too. We occasionally go out with various permutations of Chester CTC. There's only one guy I can recall who isn't a wearer. We're the only ones ever helmetless when we're out with the Fab Ladies!