Cycling UK Forum

Take a look -

Cycling between the red/yellow lines at the side of the road

.....and the wrong sort of clothes too

that's funny, mine just has a couple of normal looking people enjoying themselves on bikes on the front!

They look like they might be having a short ride to work in the sun and so have chosen kit that they think appropriate. Rucksacks? well the front one is a courier bag - ideal for short jaunts around town, and the other one could well be a camel back rather than a ruck sack - perhaps he's a MTBer who has just decided to try riding to work (I assume the picture reflects the main story). As for helmets: I think that you'll find that the CTC's pro-choice line does actually allow you to wear one if you want. Bike position, one towards secondary, the other towards primary - without knowing the context of what is happening in the road around them it's very hard to say if they are right or wrong, blindly riding a set distance from the curb just because that's what a book tells you too is a little silly.

Sorry, but as bike mag covers go I prefer what Cycle has to the vast majority of them with their lycra race boy images. I think that as an experienced cyclist and campaigners one can get a little wrapped up in the fine detail when many others might just see a photo that exudes the pleasure of cycling.

yakdiver wrote:.....and the wrong sort of clothes too

what were people saying in that other thread about a major stumbling block in getting inactive people onto bikes? something about elitism?

What's wrong with the clothes?

OK the rucksacks aren't so bad. But cycling between the red lines is. And I don't see many cyclists where I live wearing plastic hats just to go down the shops.

Both riders are in the secondary position, the man too close to the kerb. I suppose the woman is moving back into the secondary position after overtaking the man.

They are in a cycle lane. by the look of it

George Riches wrote:What's wrong with the clothes?

They're not wearing black alpaca, tweed plus fours, or Tudor sports tracksuits, or Aldi/Lidl cycling jackets .

Wrong type of bikes too - they should be riding Dawes Galaxies and using Ortlieb/Carrdice panniers or a saddlebag.

Big T wrote:

George Riches wrote:What's wrong with the clothes?

They're not wearing black alpaca, tweed plus fours, or Tudor sports tracksuits, or Aldi/Lidl cycling jackets .

Wrong type of bikes too - they should be riding Dawes Galaxies and using Ortlieb/Carrdice panniers or a saddlebag.

Saddlebag only and Exustar Stelvio shoes if you please!

I think the real problem is that they look too young!

No front reflectors or bells, not covering the brakes, helmet strap probably too loose: they could end up dead by the end of the day if they're not careful.

(Or else it's just a photo shoot and the guy is in that position just so he is visible in the picture.)

Debate over the cover photo aside, having had chance to have a look through the mag over lunch, I think that it's one of the best editions that we've had lately. I'm sure that it won't suit everyone but I found much of interest in it.

I've looked through the mag several times and still cannot find the article about Family Cycle-Camping as advertised on the cover. There is something in it that made me smile; page 69 in the review of "Britain By Bike". The reviewer says,"...although she refers to CTC in the past tense, as if the club had ceased to exist!" And that would be wrong because......?

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.

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.

I think that Cycle to Work was an attempt at "right-on" publicity- probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

The article in Cycle was of concern. I hope this is not a sign of things to come when we are a charity.....

Which issue is this? I do not seem to have it.

atoz wrote: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.

I thought this issue was pretty poor. I liked the cover though and the rucksacks are clearly a messenger bag and some sort of hydration pack (the sternum straps are a giveaway) so perfectly acceptable.