Wrong message on front page of Cycle

[George Riches]

It's been pointed out that the woman in the front page photograph is wearing a Heart Rate Monitor as well as a wrist watch. Clearly a "must-have" for cycle commuting.

I was chatting with a touring cyclist the other day and enquired whether he cycled to work. He said sometimes he walked, but at two and half miles it took too long a time. I asked why he didn't cycle; he said it took too long to shower and change clothes.

Too many people think that although you don't have to shower and change clothes after 2.5 miles of walking, you do after 2.5 miles of cycling!

[Cunobelin]

Couldn't agree more.......

Not only are these bikes "upwrongs", but they have too few wheels!

[Si]

and too many gears!

why would anyone want more than one gear in that London - the photo is just making out that cycling is much more expensive and complicated than it needs to be

Joking aside, the mag is the club's in-house publication, so even if you do accept that it is giving the wrong impression*, then at least it is giving the impression to people who already cycle and are members of the club, not to the non-cycling public.

* which I don't. I go back to my previous comments that those heavily involved in campaigning can sometimes miss the woods for the trees. The over riding impression that it gives to me is that cycling is fun and is done by normal people, not just miserable, poor, old crusties in strange lycra who ought to grow up and get a car. Looking with in the mag there is a good mixed of helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists, and male and female, and indeed, lots of people in 'normalish' clothes. Although as one letter points out, very few, if any, non-whites. And if we want to reflect real cycling (at least around here): not much sign of so-called 'chavs' on so-called 'BOS's either..

[workhard]

yeah, but what I'd like to know is where is my copy of cycle?

[Cunobelin]

yeah, but what I'd like to know is where is my copy of cycle?

Probably in the girl's rucksack?

[workhard]

this explains the smug grin.

[CJ]

They are clearly models on a professional photo shoot, shot with a VERY expensive camera equipped and wide aperture telephoto lens (evident from the pin sharp resolution, extremely shallow depth of field and perspective compression). You can tell they're models because they're both standing on the pedals of mint condition bikes. Ordinarily people don't spend that much time standing on the pedals, but models in advertising or cover shots generally do because it makes the picture look more exciting and also disguises the fact that the bikes they've been given to demonstrate are frequently not the correct size for them.

I merely offer this as an explanation of the image. You may think its either a good thing or a bad thing that CTC uses set-up shots of models rather than trying to capture actual cyclists doing real cycling. I could not possibly comment.

[meic]

This is the man that took the photo.

http://sebrogers.typepad.com/about.html

I think maybee this photo's deep inner meaning is being a bit over analysed.

It ticks plenty of boxes for a front cover photo.

We can all apply our personal riding preferences to the cyclists in the photo.
I would always wear gloves but not a helmet,however they are not me.

Why would you want to put your luggage on the bike just to nip to work? I can see clear advantages to a shoulder bag if you are going from a block of flats to an office block.

[glueman]

They are clearly models on a professional photo shoot

I made a similar point earlier. Abandoning 'real' cyclists for gym bunnies is a mistake and follows a trend I once noted as 'people I don't recognise with bodies I'll never have on bikes I can't afford'. The formulaic nature of the photos reflects the insidious creep of marketing into editorials. The mag was much better when it had readers' pics on the cover.

[mark a.]

It's been pointed out that the woman in the front page photograph is wearing a Heart Rate Monitor as well as a wrist watch. Clearly a "must-have" for cycle commuting.

I don't think she is. It's just a normal watch on her left wrist and bracelets on her right. I can't tell whether she's wearing a chest strap, although I've looked hard.

I made a similar point earlier. Abandoning 'real' cyclists for gym bunnies is a mistake and follows a trend I once noted as 'people I don't recognise with bodies I'll never have on bikes I can't afford'. The formulaic nature of the photos reflects the insidious creep of marketing into editorials. The mag was much better when it had readers' pics on the cover.

I don't care whether the photo is of models or of "real" people, or whether it was taken by a pro or amateur, as long as it's an inspiring and well-shot photo that gets a message across clearly, especially on the front cover. CTC seem to use a mixture of photo sources, both pro and amateur. Sometimes it doesn't work - especially with the amateur shots - but I can't say that an one approach is necessarily better or worse.

[glueman]

I'm afraid the covers look like mid-90s Cycling Plus shots to me. Compare and contrast to old 'Cycletouring' photographs, members riding their own bikes in a landscape. Urban shots pale by comparison but are where the growth is, so throw the background out of focus and insert pretty face and shiny bike. Result: homogenous but inoffensive cycling lite magazine.

[Cunobelin]

I'm afraid the covers look like mid-90s Cycling Plus shots to me. Compare and contrast to old 'Cycletouring' photographs, members riding their own bikes in a landscape. Urban shots pale by comparison but are where the growth is, so throw the background out of focus and insert pretty face and shiny bike. Result: homogenous but inoffensive cycling lite magazine.

You'll be wanting Frank Patterson next!

[Tonyf33]

The cover looks like two people late 20's(the chap) & mid 30's (the woman) on their way somewhere on their bikes. Sure the guy is a bit too close to the kerb but the photo wouldn't work so well if he was hidden from view.
The fact that the woman seems to be enjoying herslf as she is getting out of the saddle seems just fine for me. She isn't standing on the pedals in any case as there is sideways movement & she is clearly pedalling. The bloke looks like he is on a bike way too small for him (so to some it looks like he is standing on his pedals) again one foot is higher than the other so he is pedalling to a degree but has probably been told to keep in the background for the shot as the photographer wants the eye candy in front
BTW the young lady is definitely NOT wearing a chest band to a heart monitor, the strap is part of the courier style bag, i've had one & it is just another part of the strapping to keep it close to your back when cycling so it doesn't flap about.

[Auchmill]

This discussion is trivial, banal and worrying. Surely the point of the mag is to get people cycling. Those who feel offended by the cover pic are elitist snobs. If you followed their logic then you wouldn't have had the story about the cyclist who took her children and dog on a difficult but exciting adventure that might get them hooked on bikes for the rest of their lives. I wonder how many of the serial LeJoggers would have had the nerve to attempt it? I hope the mag continues to show that cycling is for all, whatever, age, size, shape, gender, ethnicity or whatever.

[Cunobelin]

This discussion is trivial, banal and worrying. Surely the point of the mag is to get people cycling. Those who feel offended by the cover pic are elitist snobs. If you followed their logic then you wouldn't have had the story about the cyclist who took her children and dog on a difficult but exciting adventure that might get them hooked on bikes for the rest of their lives. I wonder how many of the serial LeJoggers would have had the nerve to attempt it? I hope the mag continues to show that cycling is for all, whatever, age, size, shape, gender, ethnicity or whatever.

I agree, but we do need some standards and therefore need to exclude anyone who uses a single pannier.