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

[mjr]

made to wear a helmet by well-meaning parents who care, but apparently NOT ENOUGHto make him wear it safely

That is a quite appallng statement to make, whatever the views on helmet wearing.

Indeed, which is why it seems an appalling photo to have on the cover.

[Cyril Haearn]

It is not quite clear whether the h****t is being worn properly

It is very important that children take their h***ts off when not cycling
Climbing frames have head-sized gaps, with a h***t the head is bigger and may get stuck with tragic consequences

[Oldjohnw]

It's one thing disagreeing as strongly as you like with wearing a helmet or showing a picture. But judging parents about their level of care is beyond the remit of anyone here.

[pjclinch]

The Oct/Nov 2018 edition has two cyclists without helmets on the cover, but they're not riding, they're not smiling and they're wading through a river, with one washing the grease out of his hub and BB bearings. So, badly-worn helmet = happiness; and no helmet = you get to scowl as you wade through a wide river.

Do you really think this is an actual point? Do you not think the facial expressions may not be related to wading through a cold river? Do you think they're wading the river because they're not wearing helmets? Deary, deary me...

I think the editor chose (possibly unthinkingly) to show them having a bad time because they're not using helmets.

Sorry, but this is preposterous over-thinking.

Here is a picture from my Honeymoon web diary:


Do you think I chose to (a) take and (b) publish that picture to show that honeymoons are awful, or that that was part of the adventure we had?

If you don't think this is an actual point, please prove me wrong by going back through the covers if you have a full set. I've already mentioned that I don't see every copy - maybe the family who pass it on are keeping most of the ones showing happy smiley normal riders.

I chuck them once they've inhabited the coffee table for a while. I think there's quite a mix of covers, and I think what that shows isn't that there isn't a clear editorial policy on what must be shown. Compare and contrast to running magazines next time you're at a newsagent, where you could be forgiven for thinking that the recreational running population of the UK is characterised by smiling 30-something women who've had their sweat glands removed. People I see running don't look like that. Cyclists I see riding are not characterised by huge grins, they're just getting on with their journey.

Pete.

[geocycle]

I quite like the diversity of covers of Cycle, always lots to talk about as this thread shows. The 'not photo-shopped' extra limbs on the last edition was a classic! Contrast with something like Cycling Plus where every cover is what could well be the same helmeted man and the only difference is whether he is honking or cornering at speed.

[mjr]

It's one thing disagreeing as strongly as you like with wearing a helmet or showing a picture. But judging parents about their level of care is beyond the remit of anyone here.

Judging the appearance is not the same as judging the parents - or was that too subtle to notice?

[mjr]

Do you think I chose to (a) take and (b) publish that picture to show that honeymoons are awful, or that that was part of the adventure we had?

I plead the fifth, rather than comment on honeymoon photos!

Compare and contrast to running magazines next time you're at a newsagent, where you could be forgiven for thinking that the recreational running population of the UK is characterised by smiling 30-something women who've had their sweat glands removed. People I see running don't look like that. Cyclists I see riding are not characterised by huge grins, they're just getting on with their journey.

And you wonder why Scots are thought miserable Not huge grins, but cyclists around here are generally smiley. Some call it bikeyfaced. Maybe it's because we live in a great place or maybe so few using helmets helps

I'm sure Cycle is doing better than newsagent exercise magazines but it would be a very sorry state of affairs if it wasn't, wouldn't it?

[pjclinch]

Cyclists I see riding are not characterised by huge grins, they're just getting on with their journey.

And you wonder why Scots are thought miserable Not huge grins, but cyclists around here are generally smiley. Some call it bikeyfaced. Maybe it's because we live in a great place or maybe so few using helmets helps

So I take it that this...

[youtube]Hb0QjASuuqI[/youtube]

is a huge, carefully targeted exercise in showing how not wearing helmets prevents conspicuous displays of joy?

[Cyril Haearn]

Bikey McBikeface
May non-members buy the Gazette, if so, how many do?

[Cugel]

It's certainly true that the widespread perception of the protective qualities of Magic Hats are greatly exaggerated, but while it's the case that you can't expect them to save your life it's also relatively unlikely that wearing it wrongly will kill or seriously injure you. It's just less likley to do much useful. The overall effectiveness of a Magic Hat is on the order of St. Christopher medallions, and we don't really need to worry that much about them. They are an irrelevance in the bigger picture or personal protection.

Pete.

This is the sensible view. I don't wear a helmet as all the evidence says they are:

a) not necessary for the very low risk of me banging my head whilst on a bike;
b) ineffective at protecting against serious head injury;
c) inclined to induce a degree of risk-avidity, even when one knows they do;
d) noisy, sweaty, etc.;
e) a waste of money;
f) environmentally damaging.

But apart from that small degree of inducement of risk avidity amongst some wearers, they are hardly dangerous when worn since, wearing one or not, the risks of serious head injury whilst cycling are relatively small compared to many, many other everyday human activities.

So, I do laugh at the fashion-victims who wear them but tend to avoid accusing them of being just plain stupid for falling for the marketing and thus becoming fashion-victims. Well .... unless I meet a helmet-fascist.

It does seem obtuse for CyclingUK to passively promote them via it's photos, though. But there is an argument that photos should portray the world-as-is, not some ideologue's view of perfection. No, not even that of we anti magic-hatters!

Cugel

[mjr]

And you wonder why Scots are thought miserable Not huge grins, but cyclists around here are generally smiley. Some call it bikeyfaced. Maybe it's because we live in a great place or maybe so few using helmets helps

So I take it that this...
youtube
is a huge, carefully targeted exercise in showing how not wearing helmets prevents conspicuous displays of joy?

Apart from riders going through junctions - whose faces are understandably showing concentration more than anything - it's too blurry for me to discern many expressions in that. At least some of them seem smiley, such as the two women going through the pinch point towards camera about 2mins 35.

[mjr]

May non-members buy the Gazette, if so, how many do?

It has a cover price of £3 on it, but I've no idea where sells it.

[thirdcrank]

I don't think you need to be a marketing guru to know that you don't sell something by associating it with discomfort and the like. With regard to cycle helmets, a classic case was when the helmet trade lobby achieved the coup of compulsion in the élite peloton, only to have the total disaster of seeing riders binning them at the foot of every major climb.

I'm interested in the suggestion that part of the apparent balance in the CUK mag is achieved by pics of riders who are not actually riding. No way of knowing about intentions, of course, but it's a pretty good answer to that sector of the vigilantes who complain about pics of riders without helmets.

I fancy the subtle pressure on CUK as a charity from those who distribute grants must be considerable. In any case, AFAIK, the CTC and more recently CUK line has been to oppose compulsion. Nothing there about persuasion and promotion. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

AFAIK, the CUK mag doesn't have to compete for news-stand sales.

[pjclinch]

Apart from riders going through junctions - whose faces are understandably showing concentration more than anything - it's too blurry for me to discern many expressions in that. At least some of them seem smiley, such as the two women going through the pinch point towards camera about 2mins 35.

Try the original on YouTube that's at slightly higher res, or perhaps my monitor is better, or perhaps I'm not going out of my way to see normal people with more than normal, neutral expressions as they do normal, everyday things.

In a video of hundreds of people riding you've seen two smiling... I'm afraid you don't win a prize if that's meant to persuade us that everyone on a bike is demonstrably happy most of the time. The nature of cycling in the UK, where it is dominated by Enthusiasts with a bit of a thing for bikes and where the relative paucity of peers means they tend to give one another a cheery greeting when they do meet may have given you a false impression. I'm not suggesting that cyclists are miseries, but for people just getting where they're going it's generally pretty neutral much of the time, much like walking, even when the overall activity is felt to be good (c.f. runners). In NL the thought of waving cheerily to someone simply because they're on a bike too is ridiculous, it would be like flashing your headlamps in a car because you'd just seen someone else... in a car!

Look at local cyclists from foot rather than saying hi to them from your saddle and I'd suggest most will just have a neutral expression for most of the time. I would further suggest that if you make a habit of taking pictures of these people the results won't make for particularly memorable covers of magazines.

It remains the case that I really think your idea that Cycle is pushing an agenda of linking misery with helmetless riding through its cover picture policy is quite simply ridiculous.

Pete.

[Cyril Haearn]

When I was young (nearly) all children learned to cycle, do fewer learn now?