Wrong message on front page of Cycle

[Michael R]

Who cares?

[mark a.]

I've looked through the mag several times and still cannot find the article about Family Cycle-Camping as advertised on the cover.

I think it's page 26: cycling in Devon with the dog. It's about a family who went cycle-camping, so I guess it's the Family Cycle-Camping article.

[Goosey]

so perfectly acceptable.

Oh good!

[Si]

The picture on the cover is the least of my concerns- rather the bland statement in the piece about Cycling to Work that secure cycle parking was not high on peoples priorities.

That rather depends on whether your bike is worth stealing. Given current levels of bike theft, which featured on a tickertape link from the main CTC website, I think we can safely say just about anyone is vulnerable. So this comment is complacent.

I think that the comment was a reflection of the survey mentioned - it merely meant that when asked what was important when deciding to cycle to work, safe storage was not at the top of the list for a large number of the respondents. I don't think that the article tried to make out that it wasn't important for many on an individual basis.

I guess that most people's top priority would have been making it to work without being splatted.

[PaulB]

I've looked through the mag several times and still cannot find the article about Family Cycle-Camping as advertised on the cover.

I think it's page 26: cycling in Devon with the dog. It's about a family who went cycle-camping, so I guess it's the Family Cycle-Camping article.

Yes, you may be right. I didn't read it as I'm not a doggy person. It is more about the dog than camping. I was expecting a feature about how to go cycle camping with a family; choice of tent and equipment, cycles etc. The cover headline is misleading.

[Si]

I've looked through the mag several times and still cannot find the article about Family Cycle-Camping as advertised on the cover.

I think it's page 26: cycling in Devon with the dog. It's about a family who went cycle-camping, so I guess it's the Family Cycle-Camping article.

Yes, you may be right. I didn't read it as I'm not a doggy person. It is more about the dog than camping. I was expecting a feature about how to go cycle camping with a family; choice of tent and equipment, cycles etc. The cover headline is misleading.

See what I mean (up thread) never going to be able to please everyone - in this particular article I thought that there was too much about camping with kids and not enough about touring with dogs! Don't think that we even found out what the dog's name was.

[crossroads]

I've looked through the mag several times and still cannot find the article about Family Cycle-Camping as advertised on the cover.

I think it's page 26: cycling in Devon with the dog. It's about a family who went cycle-camping, so I guess it's the Family Cycle-Camping article.

Yes, you may be right. I didn't read it as I'm not a doggy person. It is more about the dog than camping. I was expecting a feature about how to go cycle camping with a family; choice of tent and equipment, cycles etc. The cover headline is misleading.

If you didnt read it then how do you know its more about the dog ? the dog does not get that much coverage. And it might review tents etc but you would need to read it to be sure

By the way our dog is a German Shepherd and now the wife would like me to build a box to see if she would take to it (the dog that is not the wife ) so thanks CTC mag................

[horizon]

This month's issue of Cycling Active reviews a set of helmets with the introduction: "It is not an argument we wish to take sides on." 162 cyclists are depicted in the magazine with helmets, 17 without (11 of these were in the Tweed Run article, four on the London hire bike and a couple of others, including a retro bike article).

I believe you Cycling Active - thousands wouldn't. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[atoz]

It makes you wonder what the purpose of the scheme really is. I saw a letter in Cycle Active mag from someone who couldn't afford to have a bike on Cycle to Work because he was on a low wage. When he did eventually buy a bike it got pranged, and he hasn't used it since.

....

If you buy a £200 bike on CTW, the repayments are £16.66 before tax, works out at about £12 per month after tax and a final payment of £10. Given the possible savings on fuel or bus/train fares, I don't see how anyone could say that they can't afford to get a bike on CTW. You don't have to get a bike for £1000.

Where I work, loads of people have bought bikes on the scheme. 4 out of 7 in my office alone.

Yes you can buy a bike at this price. Trouble is, you will replace a lot of components if you use it as a regular commute. What are the wheels going to be like, for example? I think we can guess..

The reality is that it is better value to get something rather cheaper than this second hand. Also, it would be less likely to be stolen- an issue if there is no secure cycle parking. When I was a skint student many years ago, there were bulk thefts of student's shiny (newish) mountain bikes at the university campus. There were 2 bikes saved from the carnage- 1 very scruffy sit up and beg scrap heap on wheels- the other was a Claud Butler Majestic with a 3 speed Sturney Archer and beefy tyres, complete with very old Carradice saddlebag- mine. I had it under a verandah for 1 year, secured by a cheapo Squire cable lock. I still have this bike now. It's ideal for limited commuting in flattish areas- no good for where I live at the moment. The bike that's best for the commute to work I daren't leave in an unsecured area. So my advice is- don't buy something new and shiny on this scheme. Get something old and scruffy but safe and fit for purpose second hand- preferably drop handlebars and limited gearing.

For more evidence- I quote this true story. An acquaintance had her nice new mountain bike nicked a couple of years ago- chained outside. By contrast, someone else was able to go to work on a scruffy drop handlebar Raleigh, and it was unmolested- secured only with, again, an el cheapo cable lock you could open with a penknife. The acquaintance has not cycled to work since.

[Big T]

I bought my wife a Raleigh Pioneer, cheap Altus kit, unbranded steel chainset, cost £170 about 8 years ago. It was in daily use, summer and winter until 2 years ago, when it passed to my son to do his paper round on. Lasted another year when the frame gave up. Could have still claimed under the warranty, but didn't bother. It still had the original wheels, f&R mechs, brakes, bars, stem, chainset, saddle. It wasn't the lightest bike, but must have done over 20,000 miles. Something like this would not cost much more than £200 today.

Isn't this just the sort of bike snobbery we've been talking about. That a £200 bike is not worth buying because it will soon wear out. That might be true of a £70 supermarket special, but £200 will buy you a reasonable bike, even today.

[glueman]

The cyclists look like models and probably rode up the same bit of highway for the camera again and again. No sweaty pits or dirt and the gear looks new. Oh for the days of dangling handlebar tape and riders who put their teeth in for the smiley shots.

[TomaszS]

'Wrong message' suggests that there is a 'right message'.

CTC represents, I hope, the interests of all non-sport cyclists. That surely includes folk who wear helmets, are under 35 and don't see the sense of panniers. Complaining that this is a wrong message is a bit narrowly proscriptive, no? They seem to enjoy cycling, that's good enough for me and is a better advert and message for cycling than a picture of me being grumpy through rush-hour traffic on my tourer in the dark rain in February! Both, however, are aspects of cycling and CTC members' lives.

[PH]

It makes you wonder what the purpose of the scheme really is. I saw a letter in Cycle Active mag from someone who couldn't afford to have a bike on Cycle to Work because he was on a low wage. When he did eventually buy a bike it got pranged, and he hasn't used it since.

....

If you buy a £200 bike on CTW, the repayments are £16.66 before tax, works out at about £12 per month after tax and a final payment of £10. Given the possible savings on fuel or bus/train fares, I don't see how anyone could say that they can't afford to get a bike on CTW. You don't have to get a bike for £1000.

Where I work, loads of people have bought bikes on the scheme. 4 out of 7 in my office alone.

There's estimated to be 1.5 million people on the minimum wage and a lot more just above it. They can't use the CTW scheme which works by the employer giving you a bike voucher and reducing your salary by the same amount. If that reduction takes your wage below the minimum rate, the employer would be committing an offense.

[PaulB]

If you didnt read it then how do you know its more about the dog ? the dog does not get that much coverage. And it might review tents etc but you would need to read it to be sure

I read the article after I saw the posting suggesting that it was the item refered to on the cover of Cycle. However, the cover headline says "Family Cycle-Camping". The article is published under "Great Rides Devon" - "Don't Forget (then in bold type) The Dog! No mention of a tent!

[atoz]

I bought my wife a Raleigh Pioneer, cheap Altus kit, unbranded steel chainset, cost £170 about 8 years ago. It was in daily use, summer and winter until 2 years ago, when it passed to my son to do his paper round on. Lasted another year when the frame gave up. Could have still claimed under the warranty, but didn't bother. It still had the original wheels, f&R mechs, brakes, bars, stem, chainset, saddle. It wasn't the lightest bike, but must have done over 20,000 miles. Something like this would not cost much more than £200 today.

Isn't this just the sort of bike snobbery we've been talking about. That a £200 bike is not worth buying because it will soon wear out. That might be true of a £70 supermarket special, but £200 will buy you a reasonable bike, even today.

It may buy you a reasonable bike- trouble is, it may have high running costs. Even on bikes costing £600 and up you get badly built factory wheels- the "boutique wheels" which are usually not worth rebuilding when you break a few spokes- the rims won't last much longer than the spokes. You can only get complete bikes on Cycle to Work- not replacement parts. And then there's STI levers on the bikes that cost a bit more than £200- impossible to service, expensive to replace.

It's not bike snobbery. When you're skint, every penny counts. Yesterday I saw a rather well used Sun Solo in Leeds- ideal for getting round town, and because it's so old, unlikely to be the target of someone stealing it to raise some drug money for a fix. You also see rather smarter bikes in the student areas of Leeds, but I know which bike I would rather use to get round town. Which is worth risking in an unsecured area?

I'm not bothering posting on this subject again.