Page 28 of 35

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 5:24pm
by reohn2
thirdcrank wrote:..... Is the role of the charity to promote cycling or to promote itself? .......


Makes you wonder dunit :?

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 5:47pm
by PH
bovlomov wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
bovlomov wrote:I know some roads are shown, but not as most of us experience them.

A bit like car advertisments on TV,it's driving Jim but not as we know it :?

That hadn't occurred to me, but yes. It's selling a dream, of carefree pootling along carfree lanes. A recipe for disappointment.

Speak for yourself, I identify with four of those six covers, maybe I am living the dream :lol:

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 6:10pm
by bovlomov
PH wrote:
bovlomov wrote:
reohn2 wrote:A bit like car advertisments on TV,it's driving Jim but not as we know it :?

That hadn't occurred to me, but yes. It's selling a dream, of carefree pootling along carfree lanes. A recipe for disappointment.

Speak for yourself, I identify with four of those six covers, maybe I am living the dream :lol:

Yes, perhaps.

I can certainly identify with riding on roads where there are neither pavements nor markings. It's the car-free bit I'm struggling with. Are there really such places?

You don't have a DeLorean bike by any chance, do you?

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 6:34pm
by PH
bovlomov wrote:
PH wrote:
bovlomov wrote:That hadn't occurred to me, but yes. It's selling a dream, of carefree pootling along carfree lanes. A recipe for disappointment.

Speak for yourself, I identify with four of those six covers, maybe I am living the dream :lol:

Yes, perhaps.

I can certainly identify with riding on roads where there are neither pavements nor markings. It's the car-free bit I'm struggling with. Are there really such places?

You don't have a DeLorean bike by any chance, do you?

Here's CTC Derby & Burton's Flickr pages, contributions from a dozen of so members, plenty of photos of people riding, not that many with cars in them, that doesn't mean there's never any cars, but neither has anyone set out to deceive
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149532011@N04/

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 6:40pm
by brynpoeth
bovlomov wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
bovlomov wrote:I know some roads are shown, but not as most of us experience them.

A bit like car advertisments on TV,it's driving Jim but not as we know it :?

That hadn't occurred to me, but yes. It's selling a dream, of carefree pootling along carfree lanes. A recipe for disappointment.

A recipe for optimism, when I retire all my cycling shall be car-free

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 8:12pm
by thirdcrank
PH wrote: ... Here's CTC Derby & Burton's Flickr pages, contributions from a dozen of so members, plenty of photos of people riding, not that many with cars in them, that doesn't mean there's never any cars, but neither has anyone set out to deceive
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149532011@N04/


Some great pics there showing that in spite of everything, club cycling is thriving at CTC Derby & Burton. :D There is a precedent:


th.jpg


:wink:

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 10:02pm
by Steady rider
hil Fouracre » 2 Dec 2018, 1:03pm

I’ve every sympathy! Did a ride leader course with British Cycling, but didn’t continue due to ‘disagreeing’ over helmets! Such a pointless waste of time and effort :-(


Can anyone tell me the position of a Cycling UK member wanting to join a BC ride, without a helmet?

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

Posted: 2 Dec 2018, 10:23pm
by RickH
Steady rider wrote:Can anyone tell me the position of a Cycling UK member wanting to join a BC ride, without a helmet?

For the guided ride programme adults are not required to wear helmets (OT: writing this on my PHONE, one of the suggestions as I started typing "helmets was "heels"! :?). As a qualified BC ride leader (although not active this year) I would suggest make a formal complaint if helmets were anything more than "recommended" on these as it isn't in the terms & conditions. "Ride social" is a bit different (although I'm not sure the difference is made clear enough, anyone can organise one although the majority are organised by ride leaders as extras or "out of season" rides) & the ride organiser could stipulate helmet wear. AFAIK Breeze (ladies only) is supposed to be the same as the guided rides.

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 8:19am
by pjclinch
RickH wrote:AFAIK Breeze (ladies only) is supposed to be the same as the guided rides.


https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/1062982531312689152 may be relevant...

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 8:41am
by mjr
pjclinch wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:I think it's fair to say that "product placement" - depicting helmet wearing as normal - is a powerful form of promotion


On the one hand that's part of why I refuse to teach Bikeability wearing a helmet, but on the other it is the case in the UK that helmet wearing is normal, and unlike e.g. sexism which is also prevalent it is generally held to be at least reasonable.

We could debate what "normal" means, but about 2 out of 3 UK cyclists do not use helmets, so it's a minority pursuit, despite the opposite being shown in Cycle and definitely in other cycling media.

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 11:04am
by Phil Fouracre
My conflict with British Cycling, and my understanding of their ‘rules’ came about during and after my ride leader course.
On the course I was told it was mandatory while I was being ‘trained’ to comply with their insurance, unhappy, but complied. On completion and prior to leading a ride, I was told that I should wear a helmet to ‘set a good example’ and that they would ‘frown on anyone who didn’t abide by the rules’ quite whose I wasn’t told. It was interesting to do the course, but, just left a little disillusioned by the attitude of the organisation :-(

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 12:45pm
by pjclinch
mjr wrote:
pjclinch wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:I think it's fair to say that "product placement" - depicting helmet wearing as normal - is a powerful form of promotion


On the one hand that's part of why I refuse to teach Bikeability wearing a helmet, but on the other it is the case in the UK that helmet wearing is normal, and unlike e.g. sexism which is also prevalent it is generally held to be at least reasonable.

We could debate what "normal" means, but about 2 out of 3 UK cyclists do not use helmets, so it's a minority pursuit, despite the opposite being shown in Cycle and definitely in other cycling media.


I think we need to beware the "tyranny of democracy" here. Who wears helmets is, I suspect, quite structured and depends on locality and demographics. There are certainly some places where wearing rates are much higher than others, and there are groups (i.e., cycling clubs) where wearing rates are much higher than others.

Cycle and other magazines tend to be about and for Enthusiasts. Enthusiasts for cycling in the UK have an outsized tendency to come from a sporting and/or "I take this seriously so I have All The Proper Gear" angle, and if you come in from those angles then helmets are prevalent. As the previously linked pictures from a CC attest.

Pete.

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 1:10pm
by pjclinch
Phil Fouracre wrote:My conflict with British Cycling, and my understanding of their ‘rules’ came about during and after my ride leader course.
On the course I was told it was mandatory while I was being ‘trained’ to comply with their insurance, unhappy, but complied. On completion and prior to leading a ride, I was told that I should wear a helmet to ‘set a good example’ and that they would ‘frown on anyone who didn’t abide by the rules’ quite whose I wasn’t told. It was interesting to do the course, but, just left a little disillusioned by the attitude of the organisation :-(


I am (notionally at least) a SC/BC Level 2 Coach. One of the coaching manuals had a bit about how I should carefully consider my status as role model and there was an implicit suggestion that riding to the shops without a lid would be Bad Form. I took advantage of a fairly free-form written assessment question without a word limit to really go off on one and then some about that, also pulling in some rather silly stuff about how we can let Sikhs ride around without helmets as long as we risk assess the activity, but we can't do that for other people.
When I got back my review from SC saying I'd passed it was pointed out I'd done particularly well on the written assessment (I think because I'm a science professional and know how to play the game, rather than my helmet rules magnum opus) but if I wanted to take certain issues further that was a job for Manchester rather than Glasgow. So I punted it down to Manchester, who tried to pass the buck straight back but I pointed out their colleagues in SC had already second-guessed them there and it was BC's problem and not SC's. There was then a fairly protracted exchange where the fact that I was a qualified coach trying to discuss my assessment prevented them from ignoring me, and eventually I had a 'phone conversation with Andrew Kirkland (the training and education officer at BC) where he pretty much admitted it was basically down to insurance and BC would "consider" removing the offending nonsense from the Coaching Manual (i.e., nothing was really going to happen).

Subsequent attempts to discuss helmets with BC have gone nowhere. I suspect I'm on a "do not feed" list, despite being a member and volunteer Go Ride coach.

It appears to remain the case that Boardman's campaigning folk are up in the penthouse suite of Clue Towers while the sports side really can't let go of the idea that helmets must be at least given the benefit of the doubt. And BC is primarily a sports body. Still, things have certainly improved from back in the Noughties when BC launched an "Everyday Cycling" website where everyone had to be shown in a lid and the "essential" kit also included "eyewear" because a bee in your eye at 20 mph is no laughing matter. From correspondence about that I came away with the idea that BC communications director Phil Ingham was a bit of a wally, and seeing his non-starring role in Nicole Cooke's book didn't really surprise me...

Pete.

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 1:37pm
by PH
pjclinch wrote:Enthusiasts for cycling in the UK have an outsized tendency to come from a sporting and/or "I take this seriously so I have All The Proper Gear" angle, and if you come in from those angles then helmets are prevalent. As the previously linked pictures from a CC attest.
Pete.

Not just the UK as a quick glance at the Netherlands Randonneurs website shows.
https://www.randonneurs.nl/

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

Posted: 3 Dec 2018, 2:21pm
by Wanlock Dod
It is indeed ironic that in a place where a head on collision with another cyclist is a very real possibility, helmets (that could probably be rather effective in such a situation) are actually little more than a fashion symbol.