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

[keepontriking]

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.

If CTC was absolutely clear it is position (not just on helmets) then such 'theories' wouldn't arise, but at times CTC seems a trifle headless in what it stands for.
As a great supporter of CTC, I find it frustrating that it is not as forceful in its campaigning style as is perhaps is needed these days.
The likes of Chris Boardman along with campaigners such as Stop Killing Cyclists seem to be the ones leading the way.

Anyway...

[Si]

Funny isn't it how the helmet got number one listin

It's following the NS order.

[pjclinch]

Funny isn't it how the helmet got number one listin

It's following the NS order.

Wot Si Sez: see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9189/nsct-level-one.pdf

The first part of most Bikeability courses is fitting a helmet, because most of the clients turn up in a helmet and most of them haven't got a clue how to fit them properly, so the first outcome (and Bikeability is outcomes-driven) de-facto requires instructors to cover it. How would I know this? I'm a Bikeability instructor. How would Si know that? He's a Bikeability instructor.

And the good thing is it requires trainees to understand about them. In Scotland our manual requires us to discuss the pros and cons of helmets to underpin free choice. This would include that a helmet must be correctly fitted to be any real use, and thus how to do that.

Pete.

[Bicycler]

To be fair, from the list the first outcome appears to be understanding clothing and safety equipment choices, including, for those who choose to wear a helmet, how to fit and adjust it. Keepontriking makes a valid point in asking how this outcome has been reduced to "Fit your own helmet"

[keepontriking]

To be fair, from the list the first outcome appears to be understanding clothing and safety equipment choices, including, for those who choose to wear a helmet, how to fit and adjust it. Keepontriking makes a valid point in asking how this outcome has been reduced to "Fit your own helmet"

This is what concerns me most – and yes I'm an Instructor too. The CTC page doesn't specifically mention anything about choice - that's such an important word. Had it done so I don't think we would be having this discussion. My fear is that CTC may be watering down its position on this, which is what started this whole thread off.

[horizon]

Well I'm not an instructor and wouldn't even have seen this had KoT not pointed it out. But I'm quite interested in figuring out where we are at on this issue. I get a funny feeling when things are very contrived and a message is being put across that isn't being open about itself - I think we all do. Advertising is full of this where the real (and I suppose, subliminal) message is contained in the associated images.

I also didn't realise that moral panic is quite an old term (1830 = I've just looked it up) and according to Wikipedia is well defined. I think helmets fall well into the definition. This isn't so much because helmets are a useful thing or not, but because every person and organisation is infected with a desperate need to be holier than the next person and proclaim loudly and clearly where they stand so as not be accused of devil worship or some such thing. This makes me suspect that lots of people aren't being completely honest about helmets but go along with the social imperative.

I think the two examples highlighted on this thread are expressions of moral panic and as such are worth being pointed up. It's where we're at, and that is also what this thread is about IMV.

More on moral panic here (it's delightfully appropriate):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

[thirdcrank]

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.

Although we often think of the media as being at best rather grudging about cycling and strongly anti-cycling at worst, images of people on bikes seem to be being used quite a bit in advertising campaigns which have nothing directly to do with cycling. I've not kept a scrapbook and I couldn't name any specific products being advertised but there seem to be a couple of themes. One is the sporting aspect so riders in racing togs including helmets. One current series of ads in the financial pages shows what looks like a team pursuit: all speed and excellent teamwork. Another, very different theme, depicts sophisticated riders - often women and not actually riding - with a "Dutch roadster" generally featuring a handlebar basket. ie broadly similar to the pic which illustrated the post I'm quoting. My subjective impression - and it's nothing more - is of no helmets in these ads. They'd be counter-productive in terms of what the campaigns are trying to portray (cool sophistication.) Definitely no sweat. Presumably, they all involve models rather than people chosen for their cycling prowess.

[Si]

The CTC page doesn't specifically mention anything about choice - that's such an important word.

Yeah but you gotta ask your self - is it all part of the helmet conspiracy or is it just someone being crap at encapsulating outcomes.....like they have been crap with several of the others that have nothing to do with helmets?

[thirdcrank]

I thought they had recently recruited a / some communications officer(s) AKA spin doctors..........

[pjclinch]

A slight digression here...

When cycling is shown in advertising to show fun/carefree it is apparently obligatory for at least one adult rider to take their feet off the pedals and splay their legs in a V as they travel along. What is that about?

On the sophisticated/cool portrayals, it does seem to be a common wheeze at having/eating cake to show your group of professional people to be standing by their bikes chatting without helmets, but one tucked in to a bag, hanging from the bars etc. For example, on Cycling Scotland's Cycle to Work page the headline image is...

Yeah but you gotta ask your self - is it all part of the helmet conspiracy or is it just someone being crap at encapsulating outcomes.....like they have been crap with several of the others that have nothing to do with helmets?

Exactly. Ascribing to malice what can be attributed to plain incompetence makes for good conspiracy theories, but tends not to bear much relation to reality.

Pete.

[bovlomov]

Ascribing to malice what can be attributed to plain incompetence makes for good conspiracy theories, but tends not to bear much relation to reality.

In this case you may be right, but it doesn't always hold true. One example: the disappearance (from police, local authority and Home Office) of files related to sexual abuse of children, could easily be attributed to incompetence, but conspiracy seems more realistic. I could think of dozens of other similar cases, where incompetence could be the explanation but it isn't.

Anyway, it's usually not 'malice' versus 'incompetence'. Very few people think of themselves as actively malicious. It would be more accurate (and less snappy) to say it is misplaced anxiety, nanny statism, ignorance, buck-passing, timidity, commercial interests, peer pressure, greed - and all sorts of other factors - versus incompetence.

[mjr]

A slight digression here...

When cycling is shown in advertising to show fun/carefree it is apparently obligatory for at least one adult rider to take their feet off the pedals and splay their legs in a V as they travel along. What is that about?

Give it a go, then you should know

[horizon]

The CTC page doesn't specifically mention anything about choice - that's such an important word.

Yeah but you gotta ask your self - is it all part of the helmet conspiracy or is it just someone being crap at encapsulating outcomes.....like they have been crap with several of the others that have nothing to do with helmets?

I agree - calling it a conspiracy is way over the top. But calling it incompetence allows us to skate over the fact that it's the sort of lazy incompetence that doesn't stop to question because it feels it doesn't need to. Showing someone with a helmet is the normal thing to do and not to do so would be somewhat rebellious and controversial - the awkward squad making a point. That's what makes this whole thing so invidious: it has taken a hold on, it seems, everyone.

It's that moral unanimity that allows people (complete non-cyclists) to recommend you wear a helmet or shout at cyclists in the street. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a social consensus (or as I prefer, moral panic). And when it manifests itself, however innocently, it gets people's backs up - the people who haven't yet switched off their critical faculties (like TonyF33).

The difference in our opinion is that I think you excuse it too lightly.

[Vorpal]

Incompetence is not necessarily a better reason than malice, and it's harder to cure.

[Tonyf33]

Incompetence is not necessarily a better reason than malice, and it's harder to cure.

Agreed, in this instance (re the photo I highlighted) it's very much a case of not understanding and (IMO) sub-conscious bias as opposed to malice and that in itself is the very worst thing and why I'm so bloody annoyed.
If an editor of a publication distributed on behalf of a charity that is supposed to uphold the rights of its 'members' (or should it be contributors?) and that of the public at large cannot understand the very basics of how powerful images are then they've no business being an editor.

The CTC is supposed to be promoting cycling as being a normal everyday activity unencumbered from safety equipment (because virtually every stat says it doesn't need it and/or makes zero or a negative effect on the safety of such), so deliberate choices of images that go right against this grain of an everyday activity are completely and utterly wrong, it would seem from the editors response he doesn't care, in effect Dan Joyce said 'I preferred a photo with a cyclist without a helmet but I chose one with anyway'
Yup, incompetence.