Cycling UK Forum

Steady rider wrote: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.

Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the 2016 AGM papers, so I relied on your own report of the wording here.

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

Whilst a 50/50 proportion is not prescribed, I'm struggling to see how anything other than 50/50 delivers a balance.

A 50/50 balance would virtually tie the hands of the editor, this was not the intentions but to try and include more non-wearers. At the time there was probably accident compensation cases and school issues and Headway and others looking for legislation and organised rides insisting on helmet use. Showing more cyclists not wearing has the effect of indicating they should not be requirement for normal cycling.

Could be difficult, a pic of 100 racers wearing h****s, would that be 1 or 100?

Or a racer at rest with his h****t on the bars and not on his head

Exactly 50/50 would be hard to achieve, I think an Editorial Advisory Panel should be formed, and what about adverts? Adverts for h****s?

Or maybe 'the utility cyclist' could be mailed the mag before publication for approval. Or non-approval, maybe he could be appointed joint editor

All it probably needs is to show sufficient non-wearers to indicate not wearing one is perfectly OK.

Helmets on the front cover - that's two issues in a row - and an article about a trip to the "cycling paradise" that is Jersey where a family of four are shown taking no chances with their personal safety - pushing their bikes and wearing correctly-fitted helmets. Be safe: cyclists dismount, push your bikes, and always wear a helmet! You know it makes sense. https://www.cyclinguk.org/publication/cycle-magazine-february-march-2019

The child in the "Join Cycle UK" advert has the straps so loose that he can push his hat back and all his forehead is showing - does that count as not wearing a helmet?

I'm only thankful that the dog on page 36 is not wearing a helmet. Woof!

IIRC Jersey has compulsory helmet laws for U14s when cycling.

They are walking in the pic but it's fairly normal to keep a helmet on when you're planning to ride once you're up the steep bit. It's also fairly normal for parents to walk up hills when the kids are walking.

Along the lines of what I've said before, the simple way to see fewer helmets in the magazine is to send in lots of well written, well photographed accounts of YOUR adventures sans helmet.

I doubt very much that the editor is swamped with such articles.

gaz wrote:IIRC Jersey has compulsory helmet laws for U14s when cycling. ...

You seem to be right
https://www.gov.je/Environment/GreenerL ... lmets.aspx

gaz wrote:IIRC Jersey has compulsory helmet laws for U14s when cycling.

They are walking in the pic but it's fairly normal to keep a helmet on when you're planning to ride once you're up the steep bit. It's also fairly normal for parents to walk up hills when the kids are walking.

You are unfortunately correct: "From 6 October 2014, cycles helmets are compulsory for children aged 13 years and under in Jersey." https://www.gov.je/Environment/GreenerLifestyles/GreenerTravel/CyclingWalking/pages/cyclehelmets.aspx

So Cycle mag is now calling a statelet with a compulsory helmet law for children a "family cycling paradise". As this backwater is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by refusing to let children cycle with their parents without a cycle helmet it is denying children and their parents/carers the "right to family life". (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects a person's right to respect for their private and family life.) Hardly paradise.

Nurse! Where's my frigging bed pan?!

Out of interest, does anybody know if an article like this is advertorial?

Buried deep in CUK's web servers is this more balanced piece on cycling in Jersey and its helmet law. Jersey's under-14 helmet law "will harm public health and the island's reputation for family cycling" https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/helmet-law-14s-implemented-island-jersey

thirdcrank wrote:Out of interest, does anybody know if an article like this is advertorial?

Yes, it's an advert for helmets! Aren't you paying attention?!

Nurse!! I need some more laxatives!!!

gaz wrote:IIRC Jersey has compulsory helmet laws for U14s when cycling.

They are walking in the pic but it's fairly normal to keep a helmet on when you're planning to ride once you're up the steep bit. It's also fairly normal for parents to walk up hills when the kids are walking.

Jersey has a discriminatory plastic hat rule that isn't a true law, same as everywhere else. Why aren't they applying the same rule for other persons on foot and in motors given even in Jersey the injuries to the head are significant for those modes of travel?

As I stated from the off, it seems pretty obvious that CUK editor is a plastic hat lover, either that or is extremely short sighted in terms of how much damage this does to free cycling, freedom of choice, freedom to not be persecuted and penalised as well as freedom to participate and not be excluded from cycling events or even simply cycling to school or in a club!