Cycling UK Forum

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.

It is fairly normal for bikes to have a wide range of gears including low ones. The hill does not look steep

It is advertorial with a small a at least
I thought there were rules about advertorial, it has to look different, be in a different type face
Has the Gazette been completely outsourced and detached from the ctc?

Any good articles in this issue, pictures of people riding?

LinusR wrote:

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!!!

That doesn't answer the question I was asking.

RickH wrote: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.

John Coulson, Randonneur, Ragged Staff and others wrote great touring articles, the Gazette could reprint them if allowed by copyright laws

Or am I thinking of Cycling Weakly?

RickH wrote: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.

So if the paid staff work against us, instead of seeking improvements, we should work for free?

I have something new to say about h*****s
Visited an army surplus store today, many different h*****s are for sale, police type with folding visor, neck protection, firemans, soldiers helmets, the british tommy type a pleasing round shape, the german more squarish etc &c

mjr wrote:So if the paid staff work against us, instead of seeking improvements, we should work for free?

I don't think they are "working against us", I think it is more likely that they are working with what they've got available to them.

To be honest I've no direct knowledge if Cycle pays for contributions that are published. There is nothing specific on this webpage to either rule it in or out for articles but the statement about submissions for the Travellers' Tales section

Two or four Travellers’ Tales appear every issue and they are always written by CTC members...
...No payment is made for those that are printed. (my bold

implies to me that they pay for other articles published.

As posted previously, 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.

The membership accepted the editiorial policy as it was expressed by the Trustees.

mjr wrote:So if the paid staff work against us, ...

Given the result of the AGM vote, the paid staff are working with the expressed consent of the members who pay their wages.

gaz wrote:As posted previously, the issue was subject to a motion at the 2016 AGM. [...]

Council response: Council opposes this motion as unnecessary. [...]

[...]
Given the result of the AGM vote, the paid staff are working with the expressed consent of the members who pay their wages.

As the proposed check was deemed unnecessary, it looks like they felt the editorial staff did it enough anyway - it was not consent for them to go do the opposite!

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.

Cycling contexts:
These cyclists are on Jersey where U14s have to wear a helmet by law.
These cyclists are a family group - One walks, all walk (one wears a helmet by law, all wear a helmet by choice/hire cycle conditions might also be reasonable suppositions).

Editorial priority:
These cyclists appear to be enjoying cycling even when the cycling is actually walking.

Focusing on the narrow issue of helmet-use:
Not allowed to be a distraction from the above.

IMO three boxes ticked, YMMV.

mjr wrote:... it was not consent for them to go do the opposite!

Please explain in what way you feel the editorial team have done the opposite?

gaz wrote:

mjr wrote:... it was not consent for them to go do the opposite!

Please explain in what way you feel the editorial team have done the opposite?

The "unnecessary" proposal was for " a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets. " Cycle's pictures are wildly imbalanced.

I don't keep back copies of Cycle. There are some available on-line, although these are more on the basis of highlights than complete magazines. IIRC they back catalogue does not include anything prior to 2012.

Has anyone got the stats to see whether they were any more imbalanced in 2018 than they were in 2015?

mjr wrote:

gaz wrote:

mjr wrote:... it was not consent for them to go do the opposite!

Please explain in what way you feel the editorial team have done the opposite?

The "unnecessary" proposal was for " a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets. " Cycle's pictures are wildly imbalanced.

As has been noted, magazines like Cycle will work with what they have. I only have a small sample here, but from what I see the typical CTC touring type is most often a Proper Cyclist in All The Gear, and that means helmets these days. So if they send in tales of their adventures they're likely to be wearing helmets. That Cycle ever features recumbents at all isn' to do with editorial policy pushing 'bents (if there was one picture of one every 10 years that would probably represent an imbalance in their favour compared to actual road and market presence), but because their riders tend to be the sort of outspoken types who are happy to write articles that reach the pile to be chosen from.

"Balance" can work in more than one way. If the magazine has a pile of possible articles and 75% feature helmeted cyclists then it is fair and in at least one sense balanced for three quarters of the touring article pictures to feature lids. There is a lot more to "balanced" than 50/50.

Pete.

mjr wrote:The "unnecessary" proposal was for Cycle's pictures are wildly imbalanced.

I have always taken Council's response not to be that creating "a balance of pictures showing cyclists with and without helmets" was "unnecessary" becasue there already was such a balance, rather as being "unnecessary" because they view such an editorial priority as "a distraction", i.e. achieving a balance is "unnecessary".

Just received my last Cycle Mag today .... First glance ...every picture showing anyone with their legs astride a bicycle is wearing a helmet ....