Page 32 of 35

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

Posted: 7 Dec 2018, 8:57pm
by gaz
The issue was subject to a motion at the 2016 AGM.
17) 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 CC, 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.


M17.png
You could throw the discretionary votes passed to the chair in the bin, the motion would remain lost.

The membership accepted the editiorial policy as it was expressed by the Trustees.
Steady rider wrote:One question is has the editor sold us out?

Given the result of the AGM vote, in what way has the editor "sold us out"?

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

Posted: 7 Dec 2018, 10:09pm
by mjr
The opposition to the proposal was that it was unnecessary - implying it should happen anyway without formal regulation. The vote being lost surely cannot be taken as blessing the current editorial policy or practice of showing a completely disproportionate majority of hard hat users.

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

Posted: 7 Dec 2018, 10:23pm
by RickH
Apart from specially commissioned stuff, such as bike reviews, the editor of the magazine is somewhat limited by what articles & photos ge/she has received.

If you want less helmets in the magazine then go and produce good quality, interesting articles of aspects of cycling accompanied by similarly high quality photos of riders sans lid enjoying the experience. I'm sure the editor would be most appreciative. If they have a choice of such articles then at least some are likely to be published.

In the latest issue the cover is one from an article about a young boy on tour with his parents & discovering the joys of independent cycling. If you ignore for a moment the helmet on his head, the photo captures his sense of enjoyment well.

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

Posted: 7 Dec 2018, 10:48pm
by gaz
mjr wrote:The opposition to the proposal was that it was unnecessary - implying it should happen anyway without formal regulation.

Hardly, the trustees response to the motion makes their view clear: insisting upon a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets isn't necessary to fulfill the editorial priority, sharing the joy of cycling.
mjr wrote:The vote being lost surely cannot be taken as blessing the current editorial policy or practice of showing a completely disproportionate majority of hard hat users.

The membership expressed a preference for the current editorial policy over a change to 50/50 helmeted/unhelmeted.

I only suggest that it is evidence that the editor has not "sold us down the river".

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 8:33am
by Wanlock Dod
The councils suggestion that showing fewer pictures of helmets would be Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use seems to me to be a flawed argument, but that's helmeteers for you.

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 9:28am
by Oldjohnw
Since after 32 pages thus argument is the same now as it was in page 1, might it be parked?

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 9:32am
by Cyril Haearn
Oldjohnw wrote:Since after 32 pages thus argument is the same now as it was in page 1, might it be parked?

No, arguments go on and on, round and round, are revived after ten years :wink:
A shame one cannae block topics, only subscribe to them, but one may ignore them

This one comes up every two months at least when the Gazette is published

When one meets a person or sees a picture what does one notice first? Helmet?! Eye colour, or what?

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 10:24am
by gaz
Wanlock Dod wrote:The councils suggestion that showing fewer pictures of helmets would be Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use seems to me to be a flawed argument, but that's helmeteers for you.

Is it a flawed argument or are you misrepresenting it? The Trustees suggestion is that binding the editor to a fixed 50/50 helmeted/unhelmeted ratio is inappropriate. The memberhip agreed.

The pictures don't exist in isolation, they accompany articles. Insisting on a 50/50 ratio ties the editor's hands on more than just illustration.
RickH wrote:In the latest issue the cover is one from an article about a young boy on tour with his parents & discovering the joys of independent cycling. If you ignore for a moment the helmet on his head, the photo captures his sense of enjoyment well.

You could publish the article without the pictures but so far as capturing the joy of cycling goes a picture speaks a thousand words.

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 10:40am
by thirdcrank
Is it a flawed argument or are you misrepresenting it? The Trustees suggestion is that binding the editor to a fixed 50/50 helmeted/unhelmeted ratio is inappropriate. The memberhip agreed.


I'd agree that the fixed 50/50 is definitely inappropriate, but for quite different reasons than seem to have been given. The reasons I'm talking about have been quoted above from the briefing note.

I remain convinced that the underlying reason is that the charity dare not risk upsetting its grant providers.

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 8:02pm
by Steady rider
The CTC policy team have published their view and have provided fairly detailed information, https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/cycl ... s-evidence
They recognise the important of providing the balance that is required. Without the balance, insurance companies will pay less compensation to cyclists not wearing a lid, schools will insist on children wearing them even with evidence showing they result in a higher accident rate and can put children off cycling.
The Editor Dan was quite annoyed at the issue going to the AGM some time ago, he cannot understand the full evidence to keep going with the imbalance of pictures. It is a difficult topic to appreciate in some ways.

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

Posted: 8 Dec 2018, 11:27pm
by RickH
thirdcrank wrote:
Is it a flawed argument or are you misrepresenting it? The Trustees suggestion is that binding the editor to a fixed 50/50 helmeted/unhelmeted ratio is inappropriate. The memberhip agreed.


I'd agree that the fixed 50/50 is definitely inappropriate, but for quite different reasons than seem to have been given. The reasons I'm talking about have been quoted above from the briefing note.

I remain convinced that the underlying reason is that the charity dare not risk upsetting its grant providers.

I really don't think that is the case.

Having worked as photographer I know how bl**dy hard it is to get photos good enough AND with the right space for a magazine cover. Plus being dependent on folk who are producing words & pictures for an article (those who could do both well were always the cream of the crop in commercial magazines), probably the pictures slightly more than the words (as there can be some editing of the words to read better but, apart from a bit of cropping, not a lot can be done about the photos.

What would you imagine to be the reaction should the editor write back that your article about your tour was very good but could you go back & re-shoot the photos without helmets (unless, of course, they were footing the bill!)?

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

Posted: 9 Dec 2018, 9:56am
by gaz
Steady rider wrote:Without the balance, insurance companies will pay less compensation to cyclists not wearing a lid, schools will insist on children wearing them even with evidence showing they result in a higher accident rate and can put children off cycling.

I can well imagine an insurance company stating that a failure to follow the advice of the Highway Code amounts to "contributory negligence" when presenting a case for a reduction in pay out for injuries suffered by an unhelmeted rider. Suggesting evidence that "half the pictures of cyclists in magazines showed unhelmeted riders" would be a strong enough rebuttal to stop such spurious claims is laughable.

Likewise the cycling policies of individual schools are not driven by the proportion of cyclists shown wearing helmets in magazines.

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

Posted: 9 Dec 2018, 10:14am
by gaz
RickH wrote:... apart from a bit of cropping, not a lot can be done about the photos.

What we need is an AGM motion calling for Cycling UK to invest in some cutting edge photoshop technology that can remove all traces of a helmet from any picture and leave a natural looking image of an unhelmeted rider in its place :wink: .

Alternatively ...
Smiley.png
The joy of cycling.

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

Posted: 9 Dec 2018, 10:32am
by thirdcrank
RickH wrote: ... Having worked as photographer I know how bl**dy hard it is to get photos good enough AND with the right space for a magazine cover. Plus being dependent on folk who are producing words & pictures for an article (those who could do both well were always the cream of the crop in commercial magazines), probably the pictures slightly more than the words (as there can be some editing of the words to read better but, apart from a bit of cropping, not a lot can be done about the photos.

What would you imagine to be the reaction should the editor write back that your article about your tour was very good but could you go back & re-shoot the photos without helmets (unless, of course, they were footing the bill!)?


I was commenting on the motion at the 2016 AGM rather than the technical problems of publishing the mag.

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

Posted: 9 Dec 2018, 3:11pm
by Steady rider
The 2016 AGM did not prescribe a 50/50 proportion. it said Cycle tends to include more pictures of helmeted cyclists and a greater effort to provide balance is required.

The 2016 AGM had plenty of motions, 17 in total, now with restrictions we could have fewer.

ps adverts mainly show helmeted.