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

[Steady rider]

At this year York Rally I noticed cyclists without helmets, so a few pictures could I assume be taken and included in Cycle. By not having a balance of pictures those not wearing could feel left out. One AGM motion raised concerns.

2016 motion
17) Helmets in Cycle

The AGM requests that editorial priority for ‘Cycle’ is to provide a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets.

Proposer’s note: CTC policy is to oppose helmet legislation and not to promote helmets. Cycle tends to include more pictures of helmeted cyclists and a greater effort to provide a balance is required. Failure to provide a balance could be a form of promotion.

Proposer Colin Clarke, seconder John Robson


Council response: Council opposes this motion as unnecessary. While the editor of Cycle aims to shows a variety of people in a range of cycling contexts, the editorial priority of Cycle is to share the joy of cycling. Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use would be a distraction from that aim.

In 2018 Cycle shows nearly all helmeted, so was Council right or wrong?

[gaz]

... was Council right or wrong?

Motion 17 was put to the 2016 AGM and rejected by the Membership.

M17.png

Shouldn't your question be were the Members right or wrong?

[Cyril Haearn]

What are chair directed votes and chair discretionary votes?

[gaz]

Meeting Votes: Votes of those Members personally present at the AGM.

Proxy Votes: Votes given by Members to proxy(s) (other than the Chair). These may be either directed or discretionary.

Chair Directed Votes: Votes given by Members to the Chair as proxy with direction on how a Member's vote should be cast. The Chair must cast every such vote as directed.

Chair Discretionary Votes: Votes given by Members to the Chair as proxy without direction on how a Member's vote chould be cast. The Chair can cast each such vote at his own discretion. The Chair can be expected to cast these votes in line with the Trustees' stated view on the Motion as published in the AGM papers.

Total: The only figure that matters. There is no result until all the votes have been cast and counted.

[roger]

At the meeting Dan Joyce said that he already endeavoured to present a roughly 50/50 balance. It seemed to me that this was a surprise to the Council. Which , I felt went a long way to influencing the meeting vote.
The minutes did not report this side of it. Unfortunately, my opinion is that the minutes are a cut and paste job on the original agenda document, adding the score. Pity any future historian.

[The utility cyclist]

Meeting Votes: Votes of those Members personally present at the AGM.

Proxy Votes: Votes given by Members to proxy(s) (other than the Chair). These may be either directed or discretionary.

Chair Directed Votes: Votes given by Members to the Chair as proxy with direction on how a Member's vote should be cast. The Chair must cast every such vote as directed.

Chair Discretionary Votes: Votes given by Members to the Chair as proxy without direction on how a Member's vote chould be cast. The Chair can cast each such vote at his own discretion. The Chair can be expected to cast these votes in line with the Trustees' stated view on the Motion as published in the AGM papers.

Total: The only figure that matters. There is no result until all the votes have been cast and counted.

Why did the chair vote against the motion, why is the trustees weight applied to the chair to use all the discretionary votes against the motion, how is this in any way fair or representative?
I get the impression that the trustees and the chair are incapable of understanding how this slants the position on helmets, images are everything, words are meaningless in this context.
The bull about not being able to find/have access to or acquire photos of helmetless people riding is utter nonsense and the fact Dan Joyce and others can't see how damaging it is so didn't consider other photos but just plumped for the ridgeback one in the first post I started (under my banned username) isn't surprising frankly.
The cycle edition is pretty much front to back full of people wearing noddy hats

[gaz]

The bull about not being able to find/have access to or acquire photos of helmetless people riding is utter nonsense and the fact Dan Joyce and others can't see how damaging it is so didn't consider other photos but just plumped for the ridgeback one in the first post I started (under my banned username) isn't surprising frankly.

A little over three years ago the editor stated he was happy to consider pics submitted directly to him.

If you've got, or can take, a great photo of utility cycling, please send it through to me at editor@ctc.org.uk and I'll consider it next time I'm looking for such an image. In fact, that's a standing invitation for any photos you've taken that you think would work well in Cycle, or on its cover.

I wonder how many took up the offer.

TBH I can't recall how I voted on this one at the time, if the Motion were at the next AGM I'd support it. I am now much more aware that portraying cycling as requiring PPE is a complete own goal in any effort to promote cycling as a safe, normal, everyday activity that anyone can enjoy.

[mjr]

A little over three years ago the editor stated he was happy to consider pics submitted directly to him.

If you've got, or can take, a great photo of utility cycling, please send it through to me at editor@ctc.org.uk and I'll consider it next time I'm looking for such an image. In fact, that's a standing invitation for any photos you've taken that you think would work well in Cycle, or on its cover.

I wonder how many took up the offer.

Where's the offer? Nothing seems to be offered. It looks like take-take-take. I suspect those among us who can take great photos (and I know there's at least one among us because I've visited an exhibition of his) prioritise selling their work over donating it to CUK. It was a pretty cheeky request, wasn't it?

[mjr]

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

Do they insist on wearing them, or have they been cowed by events from Brutish Cycling and the like into wearing them for fear of being denied the ride or, possibly worse, being loaned a groddy ill-fitting helmet of unknown history?

How prominent in the event promotion is "helmets not compulsory"?

[RickH]

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

Do they insist on wearing them, or have they been cowed by events from Brutish Cycling and the like into wearing them for fear of being denied the ride or, possibly worse, being loaned a groddy ill-fitting helmet of unknown history?

How prominent in the event promotion is "helmets not compulsory"?

Maybe "insist" was the wrong word.

From my observation of keen cyclists - those participating in Cycling UK member group rides (primarily Chester & North Wales CTC as those are the people I mainly ride with, or see photos of rides) and other groups I encounter out riding (most individual riders too) - the number of others not routinely wearing helmets is miniscule. I doubt many of them think about whether an event requires wearing a helmet as, for whatever reason, they wear one anyway when riding.

My only encouragement is that a much higher percentage, possibly a majority, of people just using a bike to get around (&dressed in normal clothes) are doing so without resorting to helmet wearing.

[mjr]

From my observation of keen cyclists - those participating in Cycling UK member group rides (primarily Chester & North Wales CTC as those are the people I mainly ride with, or see photos of rides) and other groups I encounter out riding (most individual riders too) - the number of others not routinely wearing helmets is miniscule. I doubt many of them think about whether an event requires wearing a helmet as, for whatever reason, they wear one anyway when riding.

I suspect there's a bit of a network effect going on and probably an assumption that helmets are preferred, possibly that those riding normally have special permission, much like the flawed assumption that helmets help reduce injury rates.

Nowhere on https://www.cyclinguk.org/event/early-s ... nge-ride-0 or http://www.ctcchesterandnwales.org.uk/p ... s,2017.pdf or http://www.ribblevalleycrc.org.uk/two-m ... pril-2017/ does it mention that helmets are not compulsory for the Two Mills event. Other pages on the CTC site like the report on a previous autumn edition http://www.ctcchesterandnwales.org.uk/p ... bakhan.pdf contain helmet promotion and apparently 100% helmet-wearing photos. How many would really notice the absence of a helmet rule when it's kept secret?

My only encouragement is that a much higher percentage, possibly a majority, of people just using a bike to get around (&dressed in normal clothes) are doing so without resorting to helmet wearing.

Definitely a majority. Not even the helmet-pushing UK government's last official statistics before they axed them has ever shown a majority of cyclists using them.

[Steady rider]

Gaz wrote

Shouldn't your question be were the Members right or wrong?

Council advice was to oppose the motion, so they have to accept some responsibility. Many members may also be guided by Council, as results usually show substantial proxy votes to the Chair. The membership should be better informed about the effects of helmet promotion/legislation and the accident effects, hopefully more can be provided shortly.

[LinusR]

The editor of Cycle has gone too far this time. I'm thinking of cancelling my membership to Cycling UK (or whatever they are going to call themselves, jeez it is CTC). Not only have they caved in to the h*met lobby they are now actively sneering at anyone who criticises their editorial stance. The latest Cycle mag has a photo of people cycling in casual clothes and fedora hats, as well as undertaking a river crossing without hi-viz, life jacket, a safety boat, or swimming goggles. It's just not funny anymore!

[Cunobelin]

The editor of Cycle has gone too far this time. I'm thinking of cancelling my membership to Cycling UK (or whatever they are going to call themselves, jeez it is CTC). Not only have they caved in to the h*met lobby they are now actively sneering at anyone who criticises their editorial stance. The latest Cycle mag has a photo of people cycling in casual clothes and fedora hats, as well as undertaking a river crossing without hi-viz, life jacket, a safety boat, or swimming goggles. It's just not funny anymore!

It would have been if they fell over and got wet

[Steady rider]

Once I had water chest high or nearly chest high. Abel Tasman track NZ.